High Finance Mafia’s Ultimatum to Greece

February 17, 2015

Moods rule the world. When the mood was tolerant upon making fortunes from overseas slavery, fortunes were made in Europe and the USA.

George Washington inherited ten slaves at the age of ten, when his dad passed away. When he died he and his wife had hundreds of slaves. Washington spent a last few weeks of his life making great efforts to catch a slave of his wife, the 22 year old Ms. Judge, who had escaped to the north. Washington never freed one slave, in spite of the huge pressure from his friend Lafayette.

Lafayette to whom, after all, Washington owed his presidency: Lafayette persuaded Louis XVI to go to all-out war to create the USA; on the way, he disobeyed the King’s orders, and the monarch sent him to prison.

Enough Games With High Finance, Time For War

Enough Games With High Finance, Time For War

At Thermopylae, 300 Spartans blocked an army of several hundred thousand savage slaves of plutocracy for days, before being literally stabbed in the back. However, the Spartan delaying action allowed the Athenians to evacuate Athens and prepare for the battle of Salamis, where the giant Persian fleet (composed in great part of captive nations), was sent to the bottom of the sea.

That was in 480 BCE. A time when the Greek invented, and defended a new civilization, Direct Democracy. That time is with us again. The despicable suspects of the Eurogroup are the new savages. They have to be fought, and for that, the mood has to change. Enough tolerance for High Finance.

Lafayette was a mood changer. Later, given the order to fire on We The People, as commander of the National Guard, he refused, and made the Revolution of 1789 possible.

Slavery was a mood. A satanic mood.

What are today’s satanic moods?

Moods depend upon moods. Putin’s mood depends upon the fact he has seen Western plutocrats getting away with murder and ridiculous assertions.

The mood, in the world, is that those who create, and get to play with, money, rule the universe.

Unbelievably, the “Eurogroup” (all the finance ministers of the governments of the Eurozone) sent Greece an ultimatum.

“The Greek authorities committed to ensure appropriate primary fiscal surpluses and financing in order to guarantee debt sustainability in line with the targets agreed in the November 2012 Eurogroup statement. Moreover, any new measures should be funded, and not endanger financial stability.”

As Paul Krugman puts it: “Translation (if you look back at that Eurogroup statement): no give whatsoever on the primary surplus of 4.5 percent of GDP.

There was absolutely no way Tsipras and company could sign on to such a statement, which makes you wonder what the Eurogroup ministers think they’re doing.”

Krugman is right on that one.

What the Eurogroup ministers are thinking is that, if they want their careers and retirements to advance nicely, they better abide by the mood of High Finance.

Varoufakis replied with: ”No Time For Games In Europe.”

He starts this way: “ATHENS — I am writing this piece on the margins of a crucial negotiation with my country’s creditors — a negotiation the result of which may mark a generation, and even prove a turning point for Europe’s unfolding experiment with monetary union.

Game theorists analyze negotiations as if they were split-a-pie games involving selfish players. Because I spent many years during my previous life as an academic researching game theory, some commentators rushed to presume that as Greece’s new finance minister I was busily devising bluffs, stratagems and outside options, struggling to improve upon a weak hand.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If anything, my game-theory background convinced me that it would be pure folly to think of the current deliberations between Greece and our partners as a bargaining game to be won or lost via bluffs and tactical subterfuge.

The trouble with game theory, as I used to tell my students, is that it takes for granted the players’ motives. In poker or blackjack this assumption is unproblematic. But in the current deliberations between our European partners and Greece’s new government, the whole point is to forge new motives. To fashion a fresh mind-set that transcends national divides, dissolves the creditor-debtor distinction in favor of a pan-European perspective, and places the common European good above petty politics, dogma that proves toxic if universalized, and an us-versus-them mind-set.”

I sent this letter to Varoufakis (the New York Times published an abridge version):

Dear Mr. Varoufakis, Finance Minister of Greece. Civilization is not a game, indeed. Game theory assumes selfish players (as you, an academic with a career in Game Theory says). Civilization is not about selfish players exclusively. High Finance is, though.

Civilization is just the amplification of human nature as it is meant to be, at its best, inside a tribe. However the peaceful life of a tribe depends upon the fundament of humanity, and that is love.

Without love, no human baby would ever survive more than a few days. We are born out of love. So is civilization. Sustainable civilization, that is.

In the past century, Germany had a pattern of atrocities that rested on the meta-principle of obeying orders from authority, no matter what.

That is in Kant, as Eichmann pointed out for his “defense”. Anything else was “Schuld” (debt, fault).

So Germany had a pattern of finding “right” only what fit its leadership. So far the banking crisis in Europe has brought Germany 40 billion Euros in profits it would not otherwise have made (as investors flocked to German sovereign debt). Something similar has happened with France (making lots of money from the crisis).

What authorities are German authorities now evoking, to act as robots anxious to keep Greece as a “debt colony”?

Obviously those who escaped after extending the loans that could not be repaid, private bankers from such nations as Britain, France and Germany.

The world is still under the order of High Finance. For High Finance, Greece is an example that needs to be made. For those who want to break High Finance, the new Greek government shows the way.

Because “right” has to be defined according to the Greek people, not a world of High Finance, which has long gone completely mad.

To check for madness, see the $800 trillions of financial “derivatives”, more than ten times world GDP. Contemplate also France, which has four banks that, should any of them fail, would bring down the world financial system.

You suggest to target “large-scale corruption” instead of the Greek middle-class with its privately owned pharmacies. However, the largest-scale corruption in this world is High Finance itself, the authorities German authorities abide to.

Greece saw worse, at Thermopylae and Salamis. Sometimes, it is right to fight, just because it’s right, no matter what.

If one is to die, one better die, standing up in defense of the right principles.

Patrice Ayme’

 

WRONG HISTORY, WRONG PHILOSOPHY: Nazi Lies Still Ruling In 2015

February 16, 2015

THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT HISTORY CONDEMN OTHERS TO RELIVE IT.

Misreading the history of what happened centuries, or even millennia ago, can have drastic consequences today. As the European Union is been constructed, it is important that the enormous lies of the past get exposed, for the lies they were.

(Just as it is important to expose the all-powerful Christianism of the Middle-Ages, and especially of the Late Roman Empire for the civilization devouring monster it was: then we can turn to it scion, all-powerful Islam, and condemn it, just as vigorously, instead of licking its toes, respectfully, as Obama did.)

Greece owes around 65 billion Euros to Germany, from the Greek “rescue” plan, a neat trick to have the Greek People pay for (mostly foreign) banks. Syriza, the new government in Greece (in coalition with a nationalist party) is asking for more than 160 billion Euros in reparations for the assault, invasion of Greece by Germany in 1941… Which may have brought the death of more than 800,000 Greeks.

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ "Work Makes Free"?

Do Those Who Hate The Versailles Treaty Also Believe the Nazis’ “Work Makes Free”?

[As we have seen before, and will see again below, the tradition in American circles, is to accuse the French to have invented Nazism… And that’s exactly what the Nazis said. It’s also a giant lie. A racist, holocaust force lie.]

The Nazis’ exactions in Greece were so extensive, that it is difficult to know how many died; a typical assassination by the Nazis was not an orderly extermination in an extermination camp involving processing by IBM computer (!), but shooting of an entire family in some thicket, as the Nazis wanted to leave no trace of their activities.

Paul Krugman is getting bolder Weimar on the Aegean:”Try to talk about the policies we need in a depressed world economy, and someone is sure to counter with the specter of Weimar Germany, supposedly an object lesson in the dangers of budget deficits and monetary expansion. But the history of Germany after World War I is almost always cited in a curiously selective way. We hear endlessly about the hyperinflation of 1923, when people carted around wheelbarrows full of cash, but we never hear about the much more relevant deflation of the early 1930s, as the government of Chancellor Brüning — having learned the wrong lessons — tried to defend Germany’s peg to gold with tight money and harsh austerity.

And what about what happened before the hyperinflation, when the victorious Allies tried to force Germany to pay huge reparations? That’s also a tale with a lot of modern relevance, because it has a direct bearing on the crisis now brewing over Greece.”

Krugman argues that the policy imposed on Greece now is what sank the so-called Weimar republic. Nice on the surface, false when one looks at the details. (Weimar was NOT a republic, to star with.)

But here I am going to set Krugman right about history:

*

REAL HISTORY OF FASCIST, RACIST GERMANY 1912-1953:

In 1953, the victorious Allies decided Germany ought nothing for Nazism (this is what Syriza is nowcontesting).

The history of Germany in the period 1912-1953 is relevant to the present Greek tragedy.

On December 11, 1912, it was a Sunday, the Kaiser brought his six top military men in a conference. It was decided that the ascent of the ever more prosperous French Republic and her vast empire, combined with the democratization of Russia, left the German plutocracy behind, and that only attacking them militarily would solve the problems.

The two admirals objected that they would never be ready to fight a world war within 18 months. The Kaiser insisted that they had to work more on the press to get the German population ready for war.

On June 1, 1914, Colonel House, the right hand man of USA president Wilson, secretly proposed to the Kaiser an alliance, with Britain, against France, if the Kaiser would stop his naval force built-up.

Germany attacked in August, and nearly lost its entire army in a French counter-attack next to Paris, in September (in the First Battle of the Marne).

However, corporations of the USA, for years, fed the otherwise landlocked Kaiser kingdom with war supplies, for years, through the Netherlands.

France and Britain complained to Washington, but they were not going to declare war to the USA.

After Wilson re-election in 1917, the USA declared war to Germany, just as the Soviets made peace with Germany, conceding a gigantic territory Russia occupied in Eastern Europe.

In 1918, Germany lost the war it had started deliberately, surprising everybody.

A last, all-out attack by the German army on Paris, the second Battle of the Marne, was decimated by a deluge of French artillery fire, and was finished with a pincer counterattack by 50 Allied divisions (including 2 American and 45 French).

The retreating German army, under orders, scorched north-eastern France, flooding the mines, dynamiting all production centers, and even Middle-Ages castles, burning all telephone poles.

*

GERMAN PLUTOCRACY WAS NOT DEFANGED BY THE VERSAILLES TREATY:

The Kaiser fled. However, the Prussian-German plutocracy he left behind still controlled most of the press, and the legend took hold in Germany that the German army had not been defeated.

Instead, Germans were indoctrinated: their army had not been defeated, it had been stabbed in the back. Germans were told that traitors inside Germany made the revolution that caused the defeat (the other way around from the real reality).

Those traitors were the Communists, and the Jews, they had to be killed. A civil war started, and units of the German army were employed to do just that.

As Germany was not occupied by the Allies, the Allies basically did not prevent those satanic ideas to take hold of Germany.

The Allies had not cut-off the head of the snake (as would be done after May 1945). Clemenceau predicted in 1919 that Germany, would attack 20 years later, again (as it did).

Except, next time, Germany was out to kill all the Communists and Jews.

The Paris peace conference of 1919 forced Germany to give independence to the countries it had long occupied, such as Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

It is shocking to see Paul Krugman repeat what would become one the mantra of the Nazis. Krugman: “First, Germany’s economy had already been devastated by the war.” It’s France, Belgium and Eastern Europe who had been devastated. Not one square meter of Germany had been occupied and thus “devastated”.

“Second, says Krugman, the true burden on that shrunken economy would — as John Maynard Keynes explained in his angry, powerful book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” — be far greater than the direct payments to the vengeful Allies.”

Yes Keynes may have said this, but this was not his most important message. Lord Keynes explains in his book that amputating the German empire from all the nations it occupied (“the economic consequence of the peace”) would indeed devastate the German empire.

And that it sure would, because the entire idea of many nations in 1919, including the French, was to dismantle the plutocratic empire Germany had set for itself in the middle of Europe. Lord Keynes showed his true intent, when he wrote in his racist book, that the Poles were an inferior race, and that they cannot manage an economy.

Such things are never said, so nobody knows them.

Thus our friend Krugman intones what became the German credo: “In the end, and inevitably, the actual sums collected from Germany fell far short of Allied demands. But the attempt to levy tribute on a ruined nation — incredibly, France actually invaded and occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s industrial heartland, in an effort to extract payment — crippled German democracy and poisoned relations with its neighbors.”

What is truly incredible is how ignorant of true history Krugman is.

My opinion, shared by Belgium and France in 1923, is quite the opposite. Even Paris itself had been bombed by the attacking Germans, and under long range artillery fire. That’s devastation. Germany was intact, differently from devastated Belgium and France.

The legend that Germany was devastated was most profitable to the Nazis and their plutocratic collaborators, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

Repeating The Biggest Lies of the Nazis Is Still Common Wisdom

“The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister).

The biggest Nazi lie of all was that the Versailles Treaty devastated Germany. And this is what many an American university parrot has said ever since (as it allowed to punish France, that was USA profitable!). For more on the Big Lie Technique, see: “Mediating Pluto“.

*

IN 1919, GERMANY WAS INTACT, AND SO WAS ITS PLUTOCRACY, NASTIER THAN EVER:

Germany was intact, but Germany did not want to pay. That would have been to recognize what happened in 1914, namely that Germany attacked France and Russia deliberately, knowing full well it would cause a world war (that its racist plutocracy hoped to win, with the a little help from the USA).

Why was history not learned in 1919? Some of the worst men who had caused World War One were in power in Germany, after the war.

An example is Dr. Schacht, a protégé of JP Morgan (yes, the American banker). Schacht was such a crook, his commanding Prussian general fired him for exploiting occupied Belgium. However, in 1923, he commanded the German Central Bank. To foil the French, Dr. Schacht decided to make German money worthless, by hyper inflating the money supply.

Paul Krugman wrote in his blog: “We know that part of the reason large postwar reparations were such an unreasonable and irresponsible demand was the dire, shrunken state of the German economy after World War I.”

Large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations” were a German Nazi legend.

Why did the Germans think of this legend? Because they had tried that trick, just prior.

Indeed, Chancellor Bismarck, after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, imposed on the French Republic exactly that sort of “large, unreasonable, irresponsible postwar reparations”.

Bismarck’s hope was that France would not be able to pay, and so war could be started again. In any case, his plan was to hinder the French economy indefinitely.(He got disappointed, as France paid, unexpectedly, in five years!)

So Germany was expert at the idea of mutilating reparations: after all, it invented the idea. (That’s why it should pay Greece now!)

The German economy shrunk by 25% in GDP, most of it during 1914, the year Germany attacked the world. Pushing a two million man army through Belgium will make your economy shrink.

What are those “large postwar reparations”? Intact Germany disingenuously argued that it could not pay, except in worthless paper.

The French Republic insisted that Germany had enormous forests, and could easily replace the tens of thousands of French telephone poles it had just destroyed. Was replacing the telephone poles the German army had deliberately destroyed in 1918 throughout a large part of France “large, unreasonable, and irresponsible?”

It was the refusal by Germany to replace these telephone poles that precipitated the crisis of 1923.

The French Republic, reasonably enough, decided that the German refusal to replace the telephone poles it just destroyed was indicative of a total lack of cooperation. So France, accompanied by Belgium, invaded the Ruhr.

What went really wrong is that it did not stay until reason had prevailed in Germany. Suppose that the French army had occupied Germany, until the Germans calm down, and wiser heads told the Germans what had really happened in World War One? How bad would have that been?

No Auschwitz?

*

JEWS WHO HATE THE VERSAILLES TREATY LOVE NAZISM:

In 1945, the French military fought inside Germany, and would stay there for the next 54 years, until the creation of the Franco-German brigade in 1999.

Properly digesting history is what enables civilization to survive and progress. History cannot turn into civilization unless it has been thoroughly examined.

Krugman is a Jew. He had said so himself, while recognizing he was very much cut off his roots. For Jews (!) to repeat like deranged parrots the very legends that gave rise to Nazism is beyond the pale, it’s falling into the abyss.

Why?

Because sometimes in the future, people in the West will ask: ‘Why was Israel created, if what the Nazis said was true?’ If it is true, as the Nazis claimed, that the French were the ones who launched Nazism with their exploitation of Germany, treacherously using the German Jews to stab the glorious German military from behind, did not the Jews deserve to be punish?

Well, the answer is the Nazis lied, and having Jews like Paul Krugman telling us that they did not, cannot change the reality of what happened.

Human minds cannot distort reality all they want. Nature, even human nature, is out there to correct outrageous errors. The hard way.

Patrice Ayme’

Banks, MSM, Censorship, Times, & Other Lies

February 15, 2015

Yes, Putinofascists and Islamofascists will be mentioned:

Everywhere people have power, they want more. I sent two comments which could not be viewed as friendly to banks this week; the New York Times censored both of them. I protested stridently: they ignored me, totally. I asked them to point out to me where my errors were, with what I said about the banks. So that I could stop misleading the public. Silence. All they told me is that I was under surveillance.

The New York Times banks on the best possible banks it all wants us to bank on. Pointing out how banks work, is viewed as blasphemy. Pointing out that the Greek crisis was a bank crisis, is viewed as blasphemy. Observing that banks, and the banksters who led them, escaped not just the expropriation of their personal property, that they richly deserved, but even critique, is viewed as blasphemy.

The New York Times has established that blasphemy is a crime, or, at least, immoral, by loudly refusing to publish cartoons that could be interpreted by some fanatics as such… And the New York Times made that refusal into a moral principle.

Having established that meta-principle of blasphemy under the pretext of protecting Islam, the New York Times can then apply it by protecting its readers from blasphemy about banks. The human mind is a contrived thing, but the New York Times has figured enough of it, to manipulate its naïve readers’ minds.

Truth Emerging About Islam, But Not About Banks

Truth Emerging About Islam, But Not About Banks

[In the standard interpretation of Islam, anybody viewed as having left Islam is to be killed. The Qur’an says in many places that those who leave Islam shall be “grievously punished”. The Hadith specifies what the penalty is: death.

Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.“— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17]

The latest censorship event I was a victim of from the New York Times was Saturday (2/14/15). Krugman wrote a piece: “Greece Excess Burden“. It starts this way. Krugman speaking: “What’s the state of the Greek crisis? I have no idea, or at any rate no idea beyond what any diligent reader of press reports might glean.”

One of the problems with people such as Krugman is that they read the press, that is, themselves, and all the press does is to say what its owners want to hear. Those owners are plutocrats, hence the censorship against people such as me (I have noticed that some excellent, yet critical, commenters have disappeared from the New York Times recently).

Krugman then drinks the cool-aid, and invites us all to drink it too:

I do, however, have a pretty good idea of what Greece is asking for on the fiscal side, and it might be useful to talk about the arithmetic behind that position.

Here’s the basic point: Greece has, through incredible sacrifice, managed to achieve a primary budget surplus — a surplus excluding interest payments — despite a depression-level slump. That surplus is believed to be currently running at about 1.5 percent of GDP.”

Krugman is drowning the fish in the water. It is not that what he says is false. It is that it is shallow. Krugman does not have special knowledge about the Greek debt: anybody listening to the leather clad Greek finance minister knows this. Varoufakis lived a quarter of a century between London and Australia: his English is perfect. Krugman’s job ought to be to go further than the Greek Finance  minister,

And the truth is, it’s not useful to rehash the numbers. Nor is it useful to accuse the Euro, as Krugman does periodically, and disingenuously, or Pluto knows what.

The present Greek crisis was a banking crisis enabled by non-Greek individuals and institutions. Just like Nazism, or Putinism, was not just about Germany, or Russia, but worse.

For example, Greek plutocrats put the money they stole in French and German banks. Do the French and German banks inform the Greek Treasury? No. Not at all.

So I sent the following comment to the New York Times (I sent another, less nice, half a day later, after it became obvious I had been censored). The New York Times is protecting the principle of banking as we have it now. Here is what I sent and was censored:

The whole Greek debt crisis is beyond outrageous. The innocent are paying for the thieves.

In Greece, as everywhere, some hyper rich bankers made the bets with other hyper rich bankers, and lent huge sums to plutocrats claiming to do business in Greece. All this lending went wrong, and some banks lost a lot of money (shortly after their managers got giant bonuses).

Countries such as Greece were called to re-capitalize those banks that were in danger of getting broke. Also the IMF, the ECB, and a specially created European institution contributed, with contracts ordering Greece to reimburse them.

So the private banks were saved, and they, and their managers were free to return to their games with derivatives, and other non-linear, self-dealing activities.

The bankers are laughing, bathing in Champagne, eating caviar in their mansions, graciously offered by their friend Putin.

France and Germany’s banking institutions have been milking the Greek People. They craftily went off the gravy train, letting the Public reimburse them, and now the Non-Greek Public is asking the Greek Public for money.

So the question is this:

Why are the bankers, the banks, their managers, shareholders and so on, all those who profited from financial business in Greece in the last ten years not asked to pay? They are rich, they can pay. They are culprit, they should be punished: they ought to pay.  

What is in question here is the power bankers have. Without any accountability. Who elected those people? And how come they can give money to each other, and their partners in crime, and laugh all their way to the banks?

Meanwhile some Islam fanatic(s) shot at a cartoonist and the French ambassador in Denmark, in an event about freedom of expression. The police was in force, and returned fire. The assailant(s) fled, and, remarkably, although some were wounded and one dead, the freedom event was re-started. The Islam fanatic(s) then went to the largest Synagogue in Copenhagen, opened fire, the police returned it, an innocent got killed, etc.

What does that have to do with banksters?

When one removes the nice propaganda on the surface, and one digs, both Islam and Banking are discovered to contain extremely nefarious traits.

The usual retort, is that they have good sides. Well, so did Nazism. So did actually all and any ideology: otherwise they would not be around.

An ideology is to be judged by its worse elements, its worst thoughts, its worst potential consequences, not its best ones. If the pilot may want to kill, or starve you, why would you go on that plane? All the more if he thinks that’s his religion, or his best business practice.

Another thing banksters and the professional of Islam have in common: they are self selected, to the point they do as they please. Imams can interpret Islam as they wish, and bankers can decide upon whatever they want in matter of finance, to the point they have strictly no idea what they, and the colleagues they depend upon, are doing.

So starving and killing the Greeks is just sadism, and not to talk about what truly happen, let alone censor those who talk about it, as Krugman and the new York times do, well, is criminal.

The so-called rebels in Eastern Ukraine announced that they will not respect the cease-fire, at least around a crucial city and a long a 50 kilometer corridor that are trying to break through.

French TV crews, coming from within the “Rebel” side, filmed line-ups of heavy guns firing, behind Russian flags floating in the breeze.

In Minsk, Putin recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, so what are his guns and his flags doing one kilometers within Ukraine? Lying is all about hiding the reality of one’s power.

Ultimately, bad moods propagate. Western Main Stream Media (MSM) protects the root of the banking ideology, which is that a few individuals decide who gets all the money in the world. That’s fundamentally unfair. Islamic ideology (following Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Century Christianity at its worst) decide who is a believer, and gets the greatest gift, life. It’s the same basic idea: a few individual decide of life and death.

Corrupt intellectuals, fascinated by themselves and their own little careers, told us, forever, that Islam was a civilization, much admired (it’s not a civilization, any more than the Aztecs’ cannibalistic religion was a civilization; the Aztecs had a remarkable civilization, but their bloody religion contributed to kill it, as it gave the Conquistadores and their allies all the pretext they needed).

Putin sees this simmering miasma, and the inability of the commoners in the West to connect the dots. He feels, like Hitler, that one man alone, with lots of smarts and will, like Hitler, can forge ahead a justification for his dictatorship, like Hitler, by constant war.

A lot of the inability to connect the dots is caused by deliberate censorship of the Western MSM. Krugman, great advocate of Quantitative Easing or: Let’s give trillions to the world’s most powerful people, the banksters. Krugman feels that to disparage the banks is adverse to his mission (whatever that is).

Even good willed people such as Piketty are part of it, by being wishy-washy about inequality (do plutocrats create jobs? Not sure, Piketty says; in truth plutocrats create basically nothing, and exploit everything). And by ignoring the banks. As far as I can tell, the New York Times censors 100% of my blasts against banks. Talk about an organized conspiracy.

Hey, remove the banks, what’s left of New York? A few empty skyscrapers?

Patrice Ayme’

STRUCTURED LIGHT: WHY LIGHT SLOWS DOWN IN WATER

February 14, 2015

Light slows down in water. That’s a known experimental fact. The usual explanation is that, when light advances through water, it collides with water molecules. So it zigs and zags through the water, and this zig-zagging action slows it down.

This makes no sense (sorry, noble predecessors!)

After showing why it makes no sense, I will present my solution, STRUCTURED LIGHT. The reasoning squarely contradicts Einstein on the photon, and its triumph helps to demonstrate how right it is.

Structured Light Slows Down In Empty Space. I Apply To H2O

Structured Light Slows Down In Empty Space. I Apply To H2O

If the zig-zag collision theory of the slowing down of light were true, light would lose energy during these collisions. (Light speed through water is only 2/3 c; the collision theory would mean that laser light through water would cover one third more distance, simply due to haphazard collisions; thus laser light would certainly losing coherence.)

Simple basic physics shows that light loses energy: if particle P hits particle W, and particle P’s momentum changes, W momentum also changes, and so does its energy. Energy is conserved (at least for times long enough), so as P gives energy to W, P loses energy. Here P is for Photon, of course, and W for Water. (Remember Quantum Physics does not contradict Classical Mechanics; instead, it gives it a SUBSTRUCTURE, in the finer domain that subtends the Classical domain.)

So the slow-down through collision theory predicts that light will lose energy when it goes through water.

However, it does not. Light comes out of water at the same exact color, thus energy, as it came in. Laser light keeps being laser light under water. It surely would not if every single photon of the beam had to collide with a water molecule. (Notice in the link how confused research presently is about optics and liquids; my proposed reasoning is at a scale thousands of times smaller.)

Proposing that light slows down from collision is thus wrong.

So, what’s my solution?

Absolute Wave Theory.

According to said theory, propagating photons are NOT particles (Va De Retro, Einsteinas!)

What are photons, when viewed as Absolute Waves?

Einstein proposed that photons (“Lichtquanten”) were points. He made it up. He had no proof, whatsoever, that this was true. It just sounded good. Worse: he did not need point-particle photons to explain the photoelectric effect. That error has poisoned the well of physics for 110 years. Thousands of physicists repeated what Einstein said. That Einstein was given the Nobel Prize for this exact idea, is no proof of its validity, as far as I am concerned. That makes me special.

But I have very good reasons to believe photons are not points. Because:

  1. I don’t know what points are. Not only I do not know what points are physically, I don’t even know what they are, mathematically. (By the way, I know Real Analysis and some Model Theory, so I am not as naïve as I may sound to the unwary.)
  2. Light diffracts and bends around corners. Isolated photons do this. How could they do it, if they were not spread about transversally?

Here is my conclusion: Photons are structured waves. This basically means that they have some width.

This is now experimentally supported. What was published in Science on January 22, 2015?

Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light. (Daniel Giovannini1,*, & Al.)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/01/21/science.aaa3035

“Abstract: That the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wavevectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam’s transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs we show a reduction of the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several micrometers over a propagation distance of the order of 1 m. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves.”

So what do I propose?

That water structures photons propagating through it. Structuring is what slows light down. Instead of having just one mask, as in the Glasgow experiment, we have thousand within one wavelength of light. Thus, instead of being slowed down .0001%, it’s slowed down of the order of 10% or more.

As in the Glasgow experiment, photons are not “particles”, they are spread about (they have a “TRANSVERSE structure”).

When a photon enters water, should it NOT hit a water molecule, the photonic wave will get endowed with a complex topology of non-trivial genus (because the non-linear wave that constitutes the photon has to have avoided nuclei and orbiting electrons, and the only way it can do that is by evolving holes in the right places).

As a photon passes a water molecular group, it slows down a bit. The water molecules act like the mask the physicists applied to slow down the beam photons in their experiment. Those breaking episodes pile up, and integrate in a global slow-down.

Frequency, thus energy, is unaffected.

Some may object that the theory is obviously false: should not the slow-downs pile up, and thus, the thicker the water, the more photons will slow down?

No. In the slowing down of the Structured Photons in vacuum, the slowing down is necessitated by the collapse of the photon back into a linear wave. It’s a one time event. However, in water, when the photon has acquired a structure which is enough like a sieve, after going around enough water molecules, it needs time to restructure. So over that distance, it has slowed down. Then the process repeats.

Let me quote a bit more from the violation of light speed Glasgow University paper (from behind its pay wall):

“The speed of light in free space propagation is a fundamental quantity. It holds a pivotal role in the foundations of relativity and field theory, as well as in technological applications such as time-of-flight measurements. It has previously been experimentally established that single photons travel at the group velocity (20). We have now shown that transverse structuring of the photon results in a decrease in the group velocity along the axis of propagation. We emphasize that in our full-aperture experiments, no pre- or post-selection is applied to the spatially structured photons, and that the group velocities are always compared over the same propagation distance, much as if they were in a race. The effect can be derived from a simple geometric argument, which is also supported by a rigorous calculation of the harmonic average of the group velocity. Beyond light, the effect observed will have applications to any wave theory, including sound waves.”

The authors have declared that they could not see any application of the effect they discovered. In particular not in cosmology.

However, I just found one, in everyday physics.

Einstein said nobody understood Quantum Mechanics. Feynman added that all the mystery of the Quantum was in the Double Slit Experiment. Here I explain speed of light in a medium by piling up thousands of double slit experiments within a wavelength of light, and the slow-down they bring. (It’s not quite the Double Slit as it involves continual collapses along the propagation axis.)

The structured photon is the fundamental idea, the order one idea, of the Absolute Quantum Wave theory. The preceding, and the Glasgow experiment itself, establish it further (more is coming soon).

There is no experimental support for Einstein’s views on the spatial the nature of the photon as a particle, there is plenty of evidence against it (the latest being Structured Light).

By contrast there is increasing evidence for the Absolute Wave Theory. Einstein and company, bless their souls, pontificated about a lot of things they did not know anything about. That photons were point-particles is one of them. Time to move on.

Patrice Ayme’

Picking Piketty Peeks

February 13, 2015

Thomas Piketty, a young and successful French Science Po economist wrote “Capitalism in The XXI Century”. I bought it ASAP, and then did not read one page. The reason is that there was a waiting list. By the time I got the book, it was clear it was rehashing part of what I have been saying for years.

For example, to my knowledge, I was the first to make the rapprochement between the present situation and the Ancient Regime. The Nobles (2% of the population) did not pay (most) tax.

Piketty recognizes that he just discovered “his book’s principal idea” that the “taux de rendement du capital” (return on capital) was higher than return on work. “Moi je ne le savais pas avant”. I have been pounding that fact for a decade or so.

The Higher The Return On Capital, The Lower the Growth (Piketty)

The Higher The Return On Capital, The Lower the Growth (Piketty)

It is nice to see Piketty saying these things I have been saying, now, but I have moved on, long ago. I condemn the very way money is generated (by the private-public banking system).

It is first obvious to whoever has studied past societies. Plutocracies are basically those societies where, at some point, taxation on the wealthiest has not been applied enough to limit the EXPONENTIATION of capital.

I do not find alluring to listen to my old observations. Not to demean Piketty. Others such as Saez in Berkeley, also French, had published enlightening research on inequality, for years.

I agree with all what Piketty proposes. Yet, many of his answers are all too mild.

In the period from Roosevelt to1981 (arrival of Reagan), the upper marginal tax rate of the USA averaged 82%. It applied above one million dollar income (constant dollars). Growth was maximum.

What Piketty did not say: In the next 20 years the maximum margin on the richest came down to (less than) 15%. Yes, less than secretaries.

Piketty wants to rise the upper margin tax rate of income millionaires to 80% or 90%. I agree.

To this critics of Piketty, in France or the USA, reply that will kill innovation. A French cutie interviewer told Piketty that with rates like that the robot who heads Facebook (OK, she did not use “robot”) would not have been motivated to invent Facebook.

Who cares?

As it is, Mr. Z from Facebook stole an idea from France. Besides, Facebook-like companies already existed (Myspace). There is also plenty of evidence Facebook was a government operation (the protégé of Larry Summers, parachuted to the USA government under Clinton, was parachuted to Google, and then parachuted to Facebook).

Piketty vaguely mumbled something about the research which really mattered was public. But he was weak and indecisive.

Why? Well, after all, Piketty teaches at Science Po, a place full of young arrogant greedsters who think they are becoming qualified to lead the world. They live according to a principle that Piketty himself condemns: politics as a profession. Piketty said that the fact Hollande had been in politics all his life was a problem (the same is true for roughly all politicians).

Professional politicians should not be condemned to clean the toilets exclusively, but certainly ought to be left to sort out the details, of the laws passed by the People, like they increasingly have to, in Switzerland. That’s the only exclusivity they should pretend to.

In truth, business creators are nothing much. Business creators motivated first by money are even less.

Piketty to Bill Gates: ‘If 30 years ago, one would have told you: you will earn one billion dollars, not 50 billion, would you have refused to invent Windows?’ Of course not says Piketty, answering his own question.

Piketty: Without counting that all these innovations rest on an ecosystem of public research.

Piketty missed the obvious remark that France was at the forefront of the electronics age: transistors and CPUs (chips), and even the Personal Computer (PC), were all invented, and produced first in France. He probably does not even know this.

And the fact he does not know is testimony enough to the dirty ways of money.

The hard creative work is from engineers, scientists and the philosophers who back them up, not forgetting the historians, sociologists, writers, artists and poets helping to inspire the preceding crowd.

All the world of lasers and the like came from publicly funded lab in Paris. In 1953, Kastler invented optical pumping:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/genius-irreplaceable-jobs-follow/

The same lab has made more Nobel prize winning work founding outright a completely new field: how to see light with atoms (my own formulation, don’t accuse Serge Haroche!)

Such labs are now starved by austerity.

If you ask people at Apple Inc. why they are so good, they don’t say “Steve Jobs”. It’s not just that Steve has experienced technical difficulties, it’s that Apple engineers feel empowered. Apple has $700 billion in market cap (twice Google).

After a level of inequality, it has no effect on the motivation of individuals: why to pay traders millions of Euros? Say Piketty.

What I say is that much of trading itself, should not exist.

Much of what Piketty says about Europe and the Euro Zone is correct. One should homogenize the core part of the Euro Zone, and those who don’t like it, like Luxembourg, can stay out.

Right now in Europe, large companies pay less tax than medium and small ones. It’s even worse with middle class people versus the wealthiest.

A point Piketty makes is that inequality is not everything, but opacity also matters. He mentioned that Carlos Slims (world’s richest man) obtained juicy contracts from the government. (Piketty is careful not to say that this was a case of obvious corruption; he obviously knows this, but he wants to be keep on being invited in the power circles, and his books to create the buzz that brings millions of sales).

An objection made to Piketty is that the classification of the richest people has changed over 30 years. To this, Piketty has not clear retort, but I do.

That is indeed a silly objection: The founder of Walmart passed away. His heir have, all together, more money than Bill Gates.

More historically, under the terrible Roman plutocracy, the richest of the rich changed all the time, for similar reasons. But, although it was hard to maintain just as high a status, it was easier to maintain one just below. The Curial class (= local plutocracy) survived for 4 centuries.

Karl Marx? Piketty rightly points out that Marx wanted to cancel private property, but did not think about what would happen the next day.

Piketty suggests to create new notions of property, including hybrids between public and private property as conceived now.

Piketty was asked why he was so keen, him, such a young guy, to go all around the world, to be received by Obama, to be admired by all, etc. … Instead of being working hard? Especially with the crisis we have now?

Piketty replied he believed in the power of ideas. He believes politicians are just into doing what they believe is the dominant thinking We The People (he did not use that expression) go by. So, in the democratic debate, one should try to modify this dominant opinion.

Notice the naivety: one is very far here from my Satanic interpretation of common human behavior, especially at the leadership level

The answer to this is simple: some play, some think. Real thinkers are not in the White House, they are in distant caves, watching the sea. Occasionally, when not thinking deep.

Piketty points out that oligarchic regimes bring social problems, thus scapegoats, thus nationalist drift, and then, ultimately, like Hitler, or Putin, war.

All right, truth be told, Piketty did not mention Hitler, but he did mention Putin. Not a word on the problem of banks. Out of 29 extremely dangerous banks, the equivalent of potential super-novas on the verge of explosion, four are French. BNP is roughly the same size as French GDP. Those banks are the main engines of inequality, besides the fact any of them, by imploding would make the situation instantaneously worse than in 2008.

Those banks are still allowed to engage in a form of trading which is the modern equivalent of slavery. Piketty does not mention the problem, which is at the core of the money generating-austerity craze.

And he is not afraid to say that many of the time honored ways of economics are actually outright insanity (he repeatedly uses the word “delirium”). Piketty is no genius, but he makes an excellent impresario.

Patrice Ayme’

Deep Science Is Always Born Philosophical

February 12, 2015

NO NEW PHILOSOPHY, NO NEW SCIENCE

Philosophy, and science have the same longing, truth. They go at it in, roughly, the same way. However, the data set philosophy uses, even in its mature form, is much more general. This makes philosophy more “meta”, and thus indispensable to create anything really new in science, be it even a new lab method.

So the debate “Philosophers and Physicists” in Scientia Salon is tongue in cheek.

Einstein offered philosophical considerations in domains far from physics. Yet, if one knows him well, one can see how his general philosophy positively impacted his scientific work.

Epistemology, the study of how we come to have knowledge, is a meta-discipline.

Newton: Mathematician, Physicist, “Natural” Philosopher

Newton: Mathematician, Physicist, “Natural” Philosopher

Yet, epistemology is essential to establish new methods in science. A recent example is datation using genetic material: the practice became more precise, because how we came to the previous knowledge was questioned, and then modified into better knowledge.

Edge science is nearly always entangled with practical epistemology. This makes scientists at the edge of science philosophers of science in a practical sense.

Whether the philosophical method has been useful in Twentieth Century science should not be a debate: Frege, Russell, Poincare’, etc., were also full blown philosophers. Many, if not all, of the top, fundamental physicists, used the philosophical method. The Foundational debates were all deeply philosophical always (as early as Aristotle, Averroes, Tycho, Bruno, Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Gauss, Riemann, Maxwell, Mach, Cantor, etc.).

The fight between Einstein and his sponsor Planck about the photoelectric effect was philosophical.

Bohr defended (his view of) Quantum Mechanics with philosophy (thanks to Born’s interpretation it became permanent).

Better: Karl Popper engaged in a correspondence with Einstein about Non-Locality. Out of that came the Popper experiment and the EPR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper’s_experiment

Can philosophy be practical? In science? Sure. Even in mathematics: for philosophical reasons, the Dutch topologist Brouwer rejected some infinite methods in mathematics. This brought, half a century later, mathematics that could be used in ATMs and other machines.

Science is after truth. Philosophy is also after truth. Both are also after defining what truth could be, and what propositions may be formulated and which ones may be provable.

Introducing only observables in physics was attributed to Einstein by Heisenberg, in a heated exchange about the Copenhagen Interpretation, where Heisenberg accused Einstein to have taught him that way.

But Einstein had got the notion from Poincare’. As found in Henri’s “La Science et L’Hypothese” plus Poincare’ papers on what Poincare’ called the “Principle of Relativity”, complete with the constancy of the speed of light, which, latest news, is not really constant (as I expected).

Philosophy is also after truth.

Even the truth that there are no truths about some matters.

Science also excels at the truth that there are sometimes no truth about some matters… and science has learned to overcome that: for example there is no definition, stricto sensu, of elementary particle. Elementary, yes, particle, no… But that does not prevent physicists of discovering them, at least in Feynman diagrams.

The difference between the notion of truth in philosophy and in science is just a matter of degree.

Buridanus established the erroneous labeled “Newton’s First Law” in a treaty he wrote about Aristotle. That same Buridan taught students, and established with them the basic idea of graphs, and what became the Oxford Computing School.

Aristotle, fully admirable and experimentally oriented in biology, was spectacularly wrong about inertia. That became a big deal as his students Antipater, Craterus and Alexander established a fascist political paradigm that was to reign until, well, Buridan’s time.

Thus truth in philosophy, politics, society and science are entangled.

This stays true to this day: “High Energy Physics” was long well financed, in part because the leaders of the military-industrial complex cannot fail to have noticed that they need “high energy”.

So why all the recent aggressivity of second, third, of even lower order physicists against “philosophy”? Simply because incoherent Quantum Field Theory and complete flight of fancy (SUSY, Strings, Inflation Now, etc.) have ruled physics, under the chimp like mood “shut up and calculate”, in recent decades.

Many philosophers of science have directed sharp critiques at this contemporary elite thinking in physics, and their judiciousness has made physicists furious (because they feel threatened, they remember the cancellation of the SSC).

Some insist upon labels. So and so was employed officially as a philosopher: ‘what did he do, I did not read him, I can’t read him, so why does it matter to scientists?’

Feynman was a practical philosopher. He needed his philosophy for his physics. Actually some of his “proofs” in physics use a special, Feynman-made notion of “truth”. According to Feynman-truth, Feynman discovered some things. But somebody with a different notion of truth would view physics differently (Feynman would agree with what I just wrote; actually he basically wrote this, in particular cases, say about E = mc^2, or “virtual””particles”).

French philosophers of science such as Bachelard and then his successor, Canguighelm, were actually scientists: the former as a physicist, the second was a Medical Doctor.

In turn, the one some would view as a glorified parrot, Thomas S. Kuhn, used Bachelard’s notion of “epistemological rupture” (coupure or rupture épistémologique) as re-interpreted by Alexandre Koyré to develop his theory of paradigm changes.

Wikipedia lists nearly 1,000 French philosophers (and they miss quite a few!) Many of these were of a scientific or mathematical background.

 

Here is an example: I claim the Multiverse error is based in a philosophical subtlety, which was missed by everybody. I feel that Planck nearly spotted explicitly the nature of the error, and it’s Einstein, his protégé’, who instigated it (this is rather ironical, as, in the end, without realizing it, Einstein came to be opposed to himself in the debate on the Foundations of Quantum Physics).

A lot of the progress in science, and even technology, has to do with questioning how we know what we think we know. That’s essentially philosophical. The more fundamental the scientific questions, the more one has to question how it is that we got to these conclusions.

 

Here is another example: the end of Cretaceous mass extinction. Alvarez, the geologist son of Alvarez the Nobel in physics, asked his dad how one could prove that there was an impact. The dad answered: Iridium, it’s rare on Earth, but found on asteroids. So Alvarez went to look for Iridium, and found it, thus demonstrating there was an impact.

However, I scoffed. I knew there had been other impacts. I also knew there was the Deccan Traps hyper-volcanism at the same time. The numbers, about the magnitudes did not fit. So, philosophical question: how sure were we that the Iridium did not come from the center of the Earth? I did not see the Alvarez and their followers even consider the question.

Yet, it was impossible they were not aware of it. So this was fishy scientific logic.

Science is about certain knowledge. How do we get there? By making alternatives impossible. The asteroid extinction conclusion cannot pretend to be science, because a (more probable!) alternative was not excluded.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/trapped-by-super-traps/

 

By the way, latest news show that my point of view is winning: yes Iridium can come from the core, yes the extinction’s chronology seems volcanically driven.

In other news, Coel, one of the scientist-professors-commenters and writers at Scientia Salon, said, basically, that scientist are practical epistemologists.

Coel also made a broadside against those who are ravaged by superstition to the point they demand respect for their superstitions, by confusing respect and tolerance (a point I long made).

Should we entertain those fanatics (= those who come from the fanum, the temple), we would have to respect Abraham the would-be child killer, because we are tolerant? Of what? The veneration for those who bind children to offer them to gods, or dogs?

Knowledge, and the search thereof, is more united than it looks.

Knowledge died in Antiquity because epistemology died. And that died, because fascism (“Hellenistic Kingdoms) blossomed.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Don’t Feed the Bear: All Putin Needs Is Comfy War

February 11, 2015

YOU WANT PEACE? MAKE WAR COSTLY

The French and German leaders are meeting again with Putin to make him recover reason: it reminds me of Munich, 1938, when the French and British leaders were trying to make Hitler reasonable.

France and Germany together have a slightly larger population than Russia, but three and a half time the GDP. (By the way, what happened to Britain? Well London is full of Russian plutocrats and banking institutions keen to make Assad and Putin possible; hence the British discretion.)

An Ukrainian in the street interviewed by German TV said it was out of the question to give territory to Putin: if one gives him a finger, he will take the entire arm.

Putin Wants "The Big Country" Back, & Its Prospect of Endless War

Putin Wants “The Big Country” Back, & Its Prospect of Endless War

In the West, cowardly pacifists say: do not provoke Putin, do as he says, he has nukes and will attack, if lethal defensive weapons are sent to Ukraine. That makes them collaborators of evil.

This is rather curious that pacifists use a fundamentally bellicose argument: don’t try to stop the mad man, he may get offended, and kill everybody.

Indeed, a mad man’s madness with criminal insanity overtones, makes the case for the greatest severity. So the essence of the pacifist whining call for the greatest severity to be applied on Putin, right away.

Because what are pacifists saying? Putin is the most dangerous Leader, ever. So let’s be nice to him.

It is now known that, had the USA and Britain be as firm as France against Hitler in the 1930s, Hitler’s own generals would have made a coup against him.

But, instead, Britain and the USA made concession after concession to Hitler. So Hitler flew from success to success, undermining any mood critical of him. How can one criticize a winner? Clearly, it was unpatriotic. It made the top German generals and marshals who thought that the dictator was completely crazy, and a danger to Germany look like traitors.

Something similar is developing with Putin. As he occupied and annexed territory in Georgia, Moldavia, and now Ukraine, and the West proved incapable to stop him, he looks ever more like a winner. Putin’s avowed goal is to bring back what he calls the “New Russia” (half of Ukraine) and the “Big Country” (the USSR). Pacifists say that the fundamental strategic interest of Russia is at play, so . di, Putin flies from success to success.

So where does Putin stop? This is what pacifists have to know, if they do not want to be simple collaborators of evil.

But of course, they don’t know.

Should we then keep our fingers cross, and hope for the best?

Why?

Because Putin killed only 100,000 in Chechnya? Because Catherine the Great stopped 80 kilometers from Berlin? Not a safe bet: Catherine did not have nukes.

Behaving now as nothing will stop Putin, but for the application of overwhelming force is not safe, but it is the safest strategy. If Putin is completely crazy, overwhelming force won’t stop him. But nothing will anyway, especially after he has fully armed himself, as he is presently doing, Hitler-like.

If Putin is not completely crazy, the threat of overwhelming force will stop him.

Not trying to stop him, if he is not completely crazy, will certainly make Putin completely crazy. Be it completely crazy with greed.

As I tried to explain, Putin, like Hitler before him, and Napoleon, and many (not all) conquerors before him, has discovered that war unites the People behind him, and make all the People think as one, and the name of that one, is Putin. This is what I call the fascist instinct. It is crucial to enable a (relatively) weak primate, far from any tree, to conquer the Savannah and Steppe, heretofore ruled by formidable predators.

Putin’s rule has been a disaster. Thus he needs to activate the fascist instinct in the Russian People. Thus he needs war.

Thus, if pacifists give him Ukraine, Putin will be deeply unhappy: he did not want Ukraine. He wanted war. War gives him fascism, thus the ability to rule. In this light, the reign of Louis XIV of France can be better understood.

After millions of Protestants had left France, and France has lost considerable territory in continuous wars, Louis XIV of France, the self-described “Sun-King” (“Roi-Soleil”) feebly bleated that his advisers had poorly advised him about Protestants: it had not been a good idea to have harassed, despoiled, and submit them to “Dragonades” (occupation of Protestant households by elite troops called “Dragons”).

However, Louis XIV, a dedicated fascist, hater of the “Republic”, lied (as fascists are wont to). Louis XIV had continual wars, and particularly against innocent civilians, because he needed continual wars, because that justified his fascist, personal rule.

Louis XIV was not afraid of war, he was afraid of peace, because peace meant the Parliament may want to re-establish the Republic again (which is what the “Fronde” was all about).

Napoleon faithfully executed the same scheme (because De Sade, one of the Revolution’s principals, had criticized the aggressive, expansionist war making, Napoleon put him in a mental asylum).

The same exact mechanism caused the First World War, with the Kaiser playing the role of Louis XIV. The Jews played the role of the Protestants under Louis XIV.

Soon Stalin would institute continual internal war, to justify the dictatorship of the Politburo which he headed. Hitler repeated the method.

So are we condemned to repeat history? Not so, if we learn how it works.

Putin got his 85% approval rating, from his activation of the fascist instinct.

However, the very latest polls show that the Russian People is getting wary of Putin’s protest of innocence about the war: 70 percent stated that Russia was assisting the breakaway rebels of Donetsk and Luhansk. Good. However, the same polling show that now most Russians think that establishing “Novorossia” (“New Russia”) is a good idea.

In other words, Russians are turning t the Dark Side: they know their dictator is making war in a foreign nation, but they are starting to approve the invasion of that nation, and its annexation.

Why?

Same story as what happened in the German collective psyche after Hitler annexed the Republic of Austria. Then the Germans became favorable to other annexations (Czechoslovakia, some Baltic states, much of Poland, etc.) Because Hitler had proven to be a winner.

As far as the Russians are concerned, Putin is a winner, so he has got to be right. Not right on the facts, but morally right: Ukraine, like Georgia or Moldova, is Russian property.

Want to turn Putin into a loser? Do it on the battlefield. And do like him: play dirty, send efficient weapons stealthily first.

Patrice

IMPROVING BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

February 10, 2015

Biological evolution creates capabilities that, in turn, add dimensions to the universe in which life blossoms. That makes life more mathematically complex than (known) High Energy Physics (which does not evolve in higher dimensions as time flows).

No, I am not trying to contradict Darwin’s natural selection, nor Lamarck’s various selective evolutionary mechanisms. I suggest to complement them with new evolutionary mechanisms: ecological and social evolution, and FUNCTIONAL evolution. No, I am not day dreaming: I have explicit examples: flight, brain, consciousness.

I have thought of this for years, but the discussion with Brian Key, a neurobiologist, brought it to the fore.

Professor Key argued fishes could not experience pain (or suffering), because they were not conscious. Brian ascertained the latter point from his inability to distinguish structures in fish brains similar to those found associated to consciousness and pain in human.

Similarly, the drunk searching for his keys, below the closest lamp post.

Some Academics Climb the Tree of Academia, Showing their Bottoms Ever More

Some Academics Climb the Tree of Academia, Showing their Bottoms Ever More

Einstein used a higher level reasoning. I used a higher level reasoning.

What is the brain for? Figuring things out. How does that work? Well, in humans, consciousness helps. Ergo, consciousness appeared at some point in animal evolution.

At which point?

That’s an ethological question. A question of behavior.

In the past, I used to think fishes were dumb machines of the sea. Then, as a fisher, I discovered older trouts to be really smart. Recent studies have shown (some) fishes to be incredibly smart. On some tests, some fishes are found to be chimpanzee smart.

Brian Key: “Patrice raises the idea that “common sense” tells us that animal brains have the same general purpose as humans. I challenge readers to go beyond their everyday experiences because sometimes “common sense” can be misleading.”

If animal brains don’t have the same general purpose as ours, what could their purpose be? And how come we developed a different purpose?

What is the purpose of a human brain? Surviving. If animal brains are not for surviving, what are they for?

All and any animal brain is there to do exactly what the human brain is doing.

A case of the function defining the tool.

Conventional evolution theory looks at the evolution of organisms.

But there is a higher level of evolution than the one of organisms: ecological evolution. And an even higher one: the evolution of functions. For example, the function of flying was evolved by insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats.

Once flying had been invented by insects, it created its own ecological niche, its own universe in which at least birds and bats could evolve. Because at least birds and bats could eat insects, if they learned to fly.

The apparition of brain created its own ecological niche, its own evolutionary force.

This is why the brain capabilities of the brainiest species have been on an ascending trajectory.

The octopus’ eyes do what ours do. And they look very similar. Even though they evolved in completely separate fashion, and are inverted.

Vision defines the eye. Specifics follow.

Same for brains: one needs a reward and punishment (pain) system, and consciousness is useful. A question arises naturally, which philosophers have not answered: what is consciousness for?

The case of birds is clear: although their brains are completely different, they fulfill all functions found in humans.

Homo Floresiensis is perhaps even more telling: these 1.1 meter tall hobbits had completely different, much simpler brains. However, they developed sophisticated weapons.

There too the basic functions were satisfied from completely different neuroanatomy.

I am not claiming neuroanatomy plays no role, and that all animal brains can have as many functions as human ones: supposedly cockroaches keep on drinking, even when their throats are cut. Some insects seem perfectly dumb. However, wasps are smart. And they seem to experience pain. (I have experimented with wasps; my anti-wasp method is to hit them. Once hit, or even after a near-miss, they deduct that they better get somewhere else; conversely, wasp will makes it dangerous to approach a wasp nest!)

Socratic Gadfly claimed that wolves do not discuss hunting. Pendantry rightly asked him how he knew. We know little about animal languages.

It was just discovered that “… chimpanzee referential food calls are not fixed in their structure and that, when exposed to a new social group, chimpanzees can change their calls to sound more like their group mates.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150205123016.htm

Drawing massive conclusions, when one knows so little? Is that “scientific”? Is that prudent? Is that wise? Should it be called that intellectual fascism?

Science is not getting animal brains yet.

If it were, it would get ours.

However, from this we got a conclusion: biology does not just evolve, it evolves its environment. The invention of flight by insects incited other species to “invent” flight. The invention of brains made the evolution of consciousness in (some) other species more likely.

Biology is an engineer, a scientist, a thinker.

Systems of thought, and systems of moods, have lives of their own. So does life itself. Life has a life of its own (to speak like Lacan). Life, as it evolves, adds not just complexity, but, outright, new dimensions. The Multiverse may not happen in physics, but, with life, it does, with a vengeance.

A very speculative question in physics (raised by no less than Paul Dirac) has been the permanence of physical laws. Tests have actually been made to test whether physical laws changed (they have been found not too, so far).

However, with life, the laws do change. Biological evolution evolves its own universe (and do not forget that the devil in the details is Quantum mechanical).

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

Too Little Debt & Too Much Blood Money Kill

February 9, 2015

Dying Of Too Little Debt, and Too Much Institutionalized Crime:

Nobody Understands Debt” says Paul Krugman, and he demonstrates it in an excellent editorial. I am happy that he is finally getting black on white, what I wrote long ago. He does not put it as spectacularly as I have: at worst, debt becomes tax.

From Krugman’s description Dr. Merkel comes out as a complete fool (so it is not reassuring that she goes around the world that the Ukrainian Republic should not be sold lethal defense weapons: is she Putin’s agent?). Krugman concludes: “…if the euro does fail, here’s what should be written on its tombstone: “Died of a bad analogy.

The world economy can die of other things too, such as massive corruption under the increasing weight of global plutocracy.

The presence of more than 30,000 known tax evaders in just one subsidiary of the British bank HSBC in Switzerland alone, between 2005 and 2007, has been revealed today. The total amount of tax evasion is 180 billion euros (200 billion dollars; lower numbers were initially announce, in good disinformation style). The accounts tied to politicians, royalty, designers, sports figures, corrupt businessmen, dictators, arms industry officials, drug traffickers, and high-end criminals.

The bank actively helped customers conceal the accounts from authorities. The bank also provided customers with cash under the form of bundles of old bank notes, in various currencies so they couldn’t be traced. Organized crime, also known as banking, is in charge of creating money… as debt. (97% of money is created by banks as credit, worldwide.)

The data was “illegally” downloaded by bank employee Herve’ Falciani, who later fled to France. Falciani told CBS’s 60 Minutes Sunday night that colleagues at the bank helped him with the data.

“Friends — let’s say partners — gave me these data,” Falciani says. “I’m not the only person in banking system that wants to raise alarm.”

60 Minutes made a biased report, insisting on Falciani wearing disguises, etc. Falciani was in jail in Spain (because of an Interpol warrant for his arrest launched by Switzerland, at the British bank’s prodding) for 5 months. During that time, Spanish authorities, fearing for his life, let him appear only under a heavy disguise (“60 Minutes” did not mention that the authorities disguised him; instead, “60 Minutes” insisted that Falciani wearing a disguise reflected the general mental derangement “60 Minutes” was anxious to impart to its viewership that Falciani was suffering from! Of such little details good propaganda is made of). Falciani has now police protection in France (and I would suggest that France sends warrant of arrest against various Swiss “authorities” instead; actually what about Putin’s 40 billions residing in Switzerland…).

Many heads of states were involved in HSBC Switzerland, including the King of Morocco, who had 8 million dollars on one account alone at HSBC Suisse. Ironically enough, Moroccan law forbids foreign bank accounts. The King of Jordan had 41 million in one account.

Also several dozen major Arab plutocrats owned accounts obviously set-up to feed Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Terrorism can be so expensive nowadays… Plenty of accounts of HSBC could be traced to blood money.

The brother in law of the Tunisian dictator Ben Ali. Family members of the Syrian blood bathing dictator, Assad. A major woman politician from Burundi. Money from major drug traffickers, being laundered.

HSBC says that it did not know. That’s a lie: the bank called all the owners of the accounts exposed to politics “PEP” (“Politically Exposed People”).

Why don’t banksters go to prison? Say, for decades. Why, instead of asking the Greek people to pay for bankers, we don’t systematically recover all the properties of all the officers, and shareholders of all the banks which lent to Greek plutocrats? One should also expropriate said plutocrats. Let’s do it, and see what’s left… If anything.

Here is Krugman again: “Many economists, including Janet Yellen, view global economic troubles since 2008 largely as a story about “deleveraging” — a simultaneous attempt by debtors almost everywhere to reduce their liabilities. Why is deleveraging a problem? Because my spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if everyone slashes spending at the same time, incomes go down around the world.

Or as Ms. Yellen put it in 2009, “Precautions that may be smart for individuals and firms — and indeed essential to return the economy to a normal state — nevertheless magnify the distress of the economy as a whole.”

The worst thing that can happen with national debt is that it does not get reimbursed. Then debt will act as a tax on those who had money to lend it. Not a tragedy. The failure of the Euro would be a tragedy, though.

So is sub-performing economic activity. It’s not a question of not buying enough cars, TV, pants and houses. It’s also a question of the educational system going down (so kudos to Obama for proposing to make college free… Although that just part of the problem).

What does debt do?

It augments the quantity of money on the economy while allowing greater economic activity. So, when demand is faltering, it makes demand higher than it otherwise would have been.

With all the infrastructure decaying, or proven insufficient, such as the educational system, one can only observe that more activity is needed.

A related problem is that the velocity of money has collapsed… Another indication of the insufficient economic activity.

Krugman again: “This was a prescription for slow-motion disaster. European debtors did, in fact, need to tighten their belts — but the austerity they were actually forced to impose was incredibly savage. Meanwhile, Germany and other core economies — which needed to spend more, to offset belt-tightening in the periphery — also tried to spend less. The result was to create an environment in which reducing debt ratios was impossible: Real growth slowed to a crawl, inflation fell to almost nothing and outright deflation has taken hold in the worst-hit nations.

Suffering voters put up with this policy disaster for a remarkably long time, believing in the promises of the elite that they would soon see their sacrifices rewarded. But as the pain went on and on, with no visible progress, radicalization was inevitable.”

Radicalization? It looks more like Enlightenment to me. Or then, one should go at the root of radical, which is root. Voters are starting to get to the root of the problem: they were manipulated by a class of greedsters who hold power…. And lied to get there.

Insufficient economic activity creates a plebs that does nothing but getting enough subsidies to get by, while a plutocracy rules above it. This is what happened to the Roman empire. Starting around 160 CE, taxes, especially on very rich estates became insufficient to support even the military.

Taxing the hyper rich then (as was done earlier under emperor Trajan) would have allowed to re-institute welfare for children, and make the military as strong as it was under Trajan (that, in turn brought peace and prosperity).

Are we not learning history?

Patrice Ayme’

Times: New York Heavens For World’s Wealthiest Criminals

February 8, 2015

There is a major article on the effect of shell companies and secret malevolent wealth increasingly hiding in New York (and the USA in general).

In at least 55% of properties worth more than five million dollars in New York City, the owners are kept hidden. The New York Times details a particular case. The most expensive real estate is booming, worldwide, because plutocracy is booming. A Gauguin painting was just purchased by an Arab plutocrat for 330 million dollars. Plutocrats have more wealth and power, and stealth, than ever.

Tallest Roof Building in the West. Highest Apartments $100 Million Each.

Tallest Roof Building in the West. Highest Apartments $100 Million Each.

[Notice that this plutocratic building, the 426 meters tall 432 Park Ave. is higher than the top floor of the 1 World Trade Center, the so-called “Freedom Tower”, visible just on the immediate right. A fitting symbol! Plutocracy dominates Freedom.]

In “Stream of Foreign Wealth Flows to Elite New York Real Estate” February 8, 2015 the Times reveals that:

“Behind the dark glass towers of the Time Warner Center looming over Central Park, a majority of owners have taken steps to keep their identities hidden, registering condos in trusts, limited liability companies or other entities that shield their names. By piercing the secrecy of more than 200 shell companies, The New York Times documented a decade of ownership in this iconic Manhattan way station for global money transforming the city’s real estate market.

Many of the owners represent a cross-section of American wealth: chief executives and celebrities, doctors and lawyers, technology entrepreneurs and Wall Street traders.

But The Times also found a growing proportion of wealthy foreigners, at least 16 of whom have been the subject of government inquiries around the world, either personally or as heads of companies. The cases range from housing and environmental violations to financial fraud. Four owners have been arrested, and another four have been the subject of fines or penalties for illegal activities.

The foreign owners have included government officials and close associates of officials from Russia, Colombia, Malaysia, China, Kazakhstan and Mexico.

They have been able to make these multimillion-dollar purchases with few questions asked because of United States laws that foster the movement of largely untraceable money through shell companies.

Vast sums are flowing unchecked around the world as never before — whether motivated by corruption, tax avoidance or investment strategy, and enabled by an ever-more-borderless economy and a proliferation of ways to move and hide assets.

Alighting in places like London, Singapore and other financial centers, this flood of capital has created colonies of the foreign super-rich, with the attendant resentments and controversies about class inequality made tangible in the glass and steel towers reordering urban landscapes.”

I contributed the following comment to the preceding. This comment, underlined below, was censored by the New York Times. It is interesting to wonder why:

Cities such as London and New York have officially called the world’s richest people to come live there, and escape taxation.

Thus the United States has become the world first tax haven. It’s followed by the United Kingdom, with its archipelago of tax havens, from the Channel island of Jersey, the world’s number one exporter of… bananas, to the British Virgin islands, with half a million shell companies and Apple funneling through hundreds of billions dollars…

Shell companies may exist on paper only, with no real employees nor offices. They are untraceable. Thus perfect for money laundering, giving and taking bribes, sanctions busting, stealing, drug trafficking, tax evasion, financing terror, religious fanatics, and plutocratic plots. The trail has gone cold in countless criminal probes, because law enforcement was unable to pierce through a shell’s corporate veil.

One of the problem with home ownership is that prices have kept climbing, while incomes have been (at best) stagnating. International plutocracy has pushed real estate prices up in major cities, worldwide. They escape even most of local taxation by setting up shell companies. They don’t contribute to the local economy.

The preceding four paragraphs of mine are pretty much well established. Yet the New York Times found something to censor. Censorship is a delicate thing. The NYT is navigating delicately between Pluto propaganda that feeds it, and the necessity of talking about what everybody can increasingly see.

Here is an extensive quote from the NYT:

“it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the source of money behind shell companies. Purchasers can register shell companies in the names of accountants, lawyers or relatives. Purchases are often made not just by individuals but on behalf of groups of investors or numerous family members, further obscuring the origin of the funds. What is more, ownership of shell companies can be shifted at any time, with no indication in property records.

The high-end real estate market has become less and less transparent — and more alluring for those abroad with assets they wish to keep anonymous — even as the United States pushes other nations to help stanch the flow of American money leaving the country to avoid taxes. Yet for all the concerns of law enforcement officials that shell companies can hide illicit gains, regulatory efforts to require more openness from these companies have failed.

“We like the money,” said Raymond Baker, the president of Global Financial Integrity, a Washington nonprofit that tracks the illicit flow of money. “It’s that simple. We like the money that comes into our accounts, and we are not nearly as judgmental about it as we should be.”

In some ways, officials are clamoring for the foreign wealthy. In New York, tax breaks for condominium developments benefit owners looking for a second, or third, residence in one of Manhattan’s premier buildings. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on his weekly radio program in 2013, shortly before leaving office: “If we could get every billionaire around the world to move here, it would be a godsend.””

So why did the NYT censor my own comment? The most offensive part was: Cities such as London and New York have officially called the world’s richest people to come live there, and escape taxation.

However, this is a fact.

Foreigners sheltering capital in the United Kingdom and the USA pay no tax. “every billionaire around the world to move here” was Thatcher’s explicit strategy. As the New York Times revealed, those don’t even pay local taxes.

For shell companies, related crimes, and other plutocratic plots:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/usa-financial-extortion/

The New York Times February 8, 2015:

“One type of corporate structure now commonly used in real estate transactions, limited liability companies, or L.L.C.s, did not even exist in the United States before the late 1970s. At first, they were primarily used by oil and gas traders in Wyoming to shield individual owners from liability — if, say, a well worker was hurt — and to avoid taxation of both the company and the investor.”

The end result is that honest people making an honest living find ever more difficult to find decent, affordable housing. Throughout the West. This, in turns, augments taxes of citizens, demotivate workers, and contribute to the general economic malaise.

The New York Times admits there is a problem:

“About a year ago, after the Group of 8 industrialized nations issued goals requiring identification of shell company owners, a British representative met with Justice Department officials to complain about the United States’ failure to comply.

According to two people at the meeting, the British representative, Dominic Martin, delivered a stern message: The lax American laws were being used by other countries as an excuse for inaction.

Such a message resonates with Justice Department officials who have advocated tightening the rules.

“For a long time we’ve taken the view that you have to focus on the people that manage the gateway to the financial system, and those guys are not only the banks,” said Stefan Cassella, a Justice Department lawyer. “Bad guys who are trying to invest money in the financial system — they use lawyers, they use accountants, they use real estate, they use jewelers and private jets.””

Law is local, plutocracy is global. USA based plutocracy has tried very hard to make sure that the USA stays the (control) center of world plutocracy. Hence the nice treatment for foreign plutocrats.

In general, USA legislation, or lack thereof, plus deregulation (from Clinton’s era) has been all too favorable to the hyper wealthy, not just on an individual basis, but as a class.

We were fed the propaganda drivel that the wealthiest are “job creators”, and wealth creators for all, and so ought to be taxed less, and they have been, now for decades. However the law of compound interest says that the more wealth, the easier is it to get more. To prevent that societies have invented progressive taxation.

Except, of course, in plutocracies, by quasi-definition, the richest go tax-free (European aristocracy did not pay tax). Thus, the very fact that the wealthy are taxed less is an indication of our rush to plutocracy.

NYT again: “The precise impact of wealthy foreigners on the city may be more complex, though. As nonresidents, they pay no city income taxes and often receive hefty property tax breaks. A program aimed at new condo development doles out about a half-billion dollars in tax breaks a year, according to the city’s independent budget office. These savings are passed on to owners in the form of lower property taxes. The Time Warner Center was not part of the most lucrative tax break program, but many other buildings around Central Park have benefited.

The city’s first condo costing more than $100 million, which sold in the last few weeks at the new luxury tower One57, had property taxes this past year of $17,268, according to the city’s finance office. Those taxes will go up over time, but for now that is a savings of more than $359,000.

The Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonprofit in New York, recently suggested a downside to the influx of billionaires who are in the city only sporadically.

“In terms of the local economy, you don’t have people who are going to plays, going to restaurants,” James Parrott, the institute’s chief economist, said. “They’re not spending at the dry cleaners, the grocers and all of that, so it deprives New York of all that local multiplier effect.”

What is more, Mr. Parrott said, the skyrocketing prices of the pieds-à-terre are affecting the price of real estate in the city more broadly. “There’s a downside to having such pressure at the top. It pulls up the prices overall. When owners of $10 million condos see that there’s a big market for $95 million condos, they’re more likely to raise their prices,” he said. “Then the person at $2 million raises his prices, then the person at $1 million sees that and there aren’t any prices below $1 million.””

Home Ownership Declining In the USA Because Homes Are Too Expensive Relative to Stagnating Incomes

Home Ownership Declining In the USA Because Homes Are Too Expensive Relative to Stagnating Incomes

So much for the Obama prosperity.

Prosperity in the Hamptons, destitution elsewhere.

The leadership of the USA has engaged in a deliberate take-over by the wealthiest. An example is FATCA, a legislation to reveal money held overseas mostly by middle class USA citizens working overseas. FATCA was imposed on countries worldwide. This has given a weapon for USA authorities to crack-down on foreign banks and investment firms. The result? The USA controls, or more exactly, possesses, much more of the secret (“Dark Pools”) money than before. Indeed, that was not to decrease the secrecy. Quite the opposite. The practical effect is that most money centers, worldwide have been infeodated to New York and Washington now, more than ever.

Much of the class of people gravitating around the leadership of the USA has perceived, consciously or not, that helping world plutocrats and other malefactors, was useful to augment the power of the USA leadership. So this will go on, until, We the People of the USA realizes that the rise of plutocracy is not in their best interest. (If and only if We The People has still enough power to do something about it!)

So it is nice that the New York Times is revealing the problem. However, the fact they censor comments such as mine shows that they are clearly revealing only what everybody already sort-of knows. I went one truth (or two) too far. Revealing that the USA is the number one tax heaven for plutocrats, that’s definitively too far. So, crack, censored, for an imprudent, and impudent, truth.

England and the USA have made a Faustian bargain with Pluto (who else?): they gained wealth, but lost their soul. Understanding global plutocracy’s dark machinery offers an opportunity to recover both.

In Greek mythology, one of Pluto’s characteristics, was his ability to make himself invisible. (Something Pluto Putin cultivates in Ukraine, and throughout Western media.)

At its peak, the Roman empire taxed wealth to finance the education and welfare of poor children. This rested on a cadastrum, a repertory of wealth in the empire. We need the same, worldwide. And then we need to tax wealth. And we need force to do both.

Force in the service of goodness is no sin. Love and weakness in the service of evil has no future, but mayhem.

Patrice Ayme’


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 378 other followers