Posts Tagged ‘Adolf Hitler’

MOODS RULE THOUGHTS

December 26, 2014

Systems Of Moods Overwhelm Systems of Thought.

MOODS MAKE UP THE GENETICS OF LOGIC:

Are we born with “instincts” such as “care”, and the like? Or do we learn? I believe we learn (much of this being fast learning, and, mostly, subconscious). How does that work? Well, it would work from General Topology informing neurogenesis.

French philosopher Foucault baptized himself historian of systems of thought, when he got a professorship at the prestigious Collège de France in 1970. (Collège de France, the ultimate think institution, is five centuries old.)

I have gone one further, by introducing Systems of Moods. Why moods? Emotion Primes Reason. However, rarely does one emotion rule alone, but for ravenous hunger, abject terror, and other animalistic crazes. Instead, when we meditate ponderously, we are usually ruled by moods.

What’s a mood? It’s a cocktail of emotions. Systems of Moods are articulated with their own logic. Pascal discovered this, when he said “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison n’a pas”.

Why and how does the “heart” have its own logic? The answer has to do with where does logic come from? Logic is basically about arrows, implications: ’if A, then B’.

Where do these “thens”, these implications, come from? When one says:’I have a bad feeling about this’, one reasons out of a mood: the forest is suddenly too quiet, or a bird made an alarm sound… And suddenly all of one’s senses are in full alert.

Sets of moods will tend to topological relations. Instead of the one to one relations of logic or category theory. Topology, the logic of places, can bring to bear relationships that are much more general than ‘if A then B’. Relations such as: ’if A is close to B while C is close to D, when closer to A than B, then…’

This topo-logic can be embodied by neurohormones, neurotransmitters, and the neighborhoods they create (neighborhood is here used in the exact mathematical, General Topological sense). This no idle theory: it’s known that dendrites, and other neuronal structures, tend to grow in some directions, depending upon these chemicals. That means that the neurological relations of linear logic are built from the emotional and neurohormonal calculus.

***

AN EXAMPLE WHERE MOODS DOMINATE, AND LOGIC IS SECONDARY:

I am going to use an example that arose from my adventures at a philosophy website. It’s rather complex, so let me give an abstract first: a philosophy professor drew a correct conclusion, yet the EXACT OPPOSITE conclusion is also valid. How is that possible? It is because, once some moods and emotions are rolled out, logic can go one way, or the other.

So much for the old hope that determinism and logic (in the conventional sense) rule all.

The example was extracted from Scientia Salon, a site run by university philosophers.

Philosophy professor Gregg Caruso considered polls on the behavior of USA citizens (that’s called “experimental philosophy”). Verdict? The relationship between believing in Free Will and believing that low lives dug their own fates, seems strong in the USA.

Gregg wrote: “juries — eager to preserve their belief in a just world — are already inclined to see the victim … as other than innocent… just one unfortunate example of the pernicious nature of belief in a just world… since, of course, if the world is just, then people must have brought these circumstances upon themselves. This blaming of victims (in defense of belief in a just world) has been established by numerous studies… the stronger the belief in a just world the greater the likelihood of blaming victims for their unfortunate fates.”

Any society rests on logic. The logic does not have to be all-embracing, it just has to be effective enough to support the social organization. Gregg’s general thesis is a good antidote to the present logic dominating the USA. Yet a USA social truth does not have to be a truth of human ethology.

And it is not, as egregious cases in non-USA based history and geography show.

The Nazis believed the less Free Will, the better: “society’s needs come before the individual’s needs” (Adolf Hitler). So did the followers of Stalin. So do, to a great extent some of the Muslim religions (so called “branches” of Islam). All believe(d) that individual Free Will had to be eradicated. Islam comes from aslama “he submitted”.

All believe(d) that the world could be made just through the application of strength, and the Will of God, the General Secretary, or the Guide.

Now, if I abstract the examples above (Stalinism, Nazism, Islamism), I can rephrase the grand conclusion of Gregg, into its complete contradiction. Below I just changed “Free Will” into “NON Free Will”:

…belief in NON free will, it was found, by studying the historical examples above, is associated with just world belief, authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and other. While these considerations do not prove belief in NON free will is mistaken, they do indicate that the putative pragmatic benefits of believing in NON free will and desert-based moral responsibility are bogus.

Gregg showed that in the USA to doubt Free Will would allow society to progress. History, in many other places show that rejecting Free Will led to horrible societies.

How come Gregg’s informed logic and concrete polls can be turned on its head? What is going on?

The answer is from the theory of systems of moods. The reason that the logic can be turned on its head is that what truly matters are the mood and subjacent emotions.

Example. The Nazis posed themselves as victims of an unjust world (big, bad, rich, hypocritical, Indian exterminating America; Versailles Treaty). Germans, all over, were oppressed minorities. Only surrendering Free Will would be bring back justice and stop the punition they were submitted to.

Strong emotions, bound by strong logic, make strong medicine. Yet, the logic is secondary. It could go whichever way. This is what the apparent truth of both Free Will Skepticism, and the truth of its exact opposite, my pernicious anti-thesis (just an observation, too), demonstrate.

Foucault suggested that power laid in discourses, more than anything else. I agree. Yet, beyond that, power lays in the raw emotions, and the moods they blossom into. The exact nature of the way they get organized is an afterthought.

Here is an explicit example: Christianism and love. Christ said that to love was the commanding commandment. Fine. However, read what he exactly said:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What’s the strongest emotion here? Jesus says it himself: loving obedience to “the Lord”. He puts it first. However, obedience is not the most prominent feature of human ethology (raw love probably is, next to the survival instinct). Thus the implied logic is the violence one has to exert to do something unnatural, obeying a so-called “Lord”.

In the end, Jesus’ primary emotion holds in just one word: “Lord”. Jesus is a plutophile: loving a “Lord” is the first law.

He, and others, can put whatever logic they want after that to embellish the ugliness, and comfort the horror. It does not really matter. The overall mood flows from there, one concept: “the Lord”. The rest is just rearranging the chairs on the sinking Titanic of Jesus’ make belief goodness.

Patrice Ayme’

Live Within Our Means, Say Mean Plutocrats

December 5, 2014

Austerity Is A Conspiracy By Those Who, Having All The Money, Want Us To Have None:

What do plutocrats want? In the common, all too restrictive sense of plutocracy as the “rule of money”, “plutocracy” is supposed to mean that plutocrats want their money to rule.

Yet, plutocracy is not just about money. Even if one starts with “money”, one ends up with much more. Indeed, money is power onto others. By establishing charities, foundations, political financing, and other networks of influence, plutocrats extent invisibly their power beyond the horizon, and below the ground.

However Homo Sapiens Sapiens not being made to be submitted to others “power”, we have there, in this will to quasi-infinite plutocratic power, a form of cruelty, not to say, mayhem. Power struggles kill, among chimpanzees.

Britain Won Its Place In The World Through Ultra Massive Borrowing & Money Creation

Britain Won Its Place In The World Through Ultra Massive Borrowing & Money Creation

Notice that, with chimpanzees, even the alpha male has very little power: as soon as three of his subordinates gang up against him, he is toast. The same holds with wolves, or lions.

But civilization is all about power. When only a few have its reins, they become like gods. At least in their minds, habits, ways, and means. That’s why plutocrats, their obsequious servants, and those they have hypnotized, worry so much about “us living within our means”.

 

A Few Guys Have ALL The Power, What Could Go Wrong?

Whereas a modern bureaucrat, like Eichmann, can send millions to death. Some will say the analogy is in poor taste. But not so. People such as Obama, Hollande, Putin, can literally launch actions that, in the worst possible case, could lead quickly to the death of billions (it takes just one 300 kiloton thermonuclear bomb to destroy most of any city on Earth).

I do believe that so much power, in so few hands, in so few brains, is not just immoral, but unwise. This makes civilization highly unstable.

However, a meta-discourse has been held, not just logically, but emotionally: it is OK to have so much power in so few hands.

Let’s put aside the main problem aside. The main problem being that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that Czar Putin, for example, has more power than all the Czars who existed before him, put together: it’s not just that Stalin, had no H bombs. Both him, and Brezhnev, were worried by the Politburo (their top communist colleagues). Putin, by comparison reigns on a coterie of obsequious plutocrats, anxious about Polonium in their tea, or homicide by heart attack.

Not that Putin needs to give a direct order. For someone who can roughly kill half of Chechnya, and then get away with offering luxury homes there to his gregarious friend the “star”, not to say czar, Depardieu (not prosecuted for war profiteering, whereas the French government prosecutes commoners for basically nothing, commonly), letting it known to its secret services subordinates that he would love it if contradictors could just vanish, is elementary.

An aside here: when top official of the Nazi administration asked Adolf Hitler directly whether there was a systematic policy in place for killing Jews, Adolf Hitler firmly denied there was. At the Wannsee Holocaust conference, top Nazis confronted SS General Heydrich, and told him that Hitler had personally told them that it was not the policy of the Reich to kill the Jews. And they felt sure that, should they ask Hitler that same question again Hitler would give the same answer.

To that Heydrich icily replied, with a thin smile: ”Of course, he will!”

The fundamental problem with the top Nazis was not that they had some very bad ideas, it was that they had too much power. That enormous power (greatly enabled by the dog-like submissivity of the average German at the time), led them in a quick succession of choices, ever more abysmal, starting in January 1933. (To this, as soon as 1933, the French and American Republics reacted by engaging in giant military spending to equip themselves for a world war; Poland and Britain, instead, reacted by becoming Hitler’s best friends… They would realize their mistake in 1939)

 

If A Few Guys Can Fry Us All, Why Can’t They Own Us?

If it’s OK to risk thermonuclear Armageddon with a few morons in control (for vicious moron, consider Putin), why is it not OK to risk an economic apocalypse, let alone a climate apocalypse, with even more morons in control?

Is it not more… democratic? If Obama has too much power, does not giving ever more power to the Koch Brother, Bill Gates, and the Z guy from Facebook counterbalance that?

In any case, bleat the sheep, if plutocrats have all the power, they take all the decisions, and we can rest.

So, indeed, we have to ask again, what do plutocrats want? What train of evolutionary thought do they come from?

Well, simply the cruel streak which leads to extermination. The main problem of man has been man. For millions of years, being the top predator.

 

Insane Austerity Is Plutocracy Under Another Name:

One of the appreciated commenters on this site, Chris Snuggs, made the observation that:

It is not “austerity for austerity’s sake”, Patrice. It is simply the principle of “living within one’s means”. NO COUNTRY IN EUROPE IS DOING THIS. The idea that “ending austerity” is the solution is risible leftist claptrap. It is the failure to live within our means that has led to this as politicians at all levels either bribe voters with the latters’ own money, or in the case especially of Italy and Greece simply steal it.

If it were just Italy and Greece, we would be safe. Stealing from politicians is a worldwide phenomenon.

The son of the preceding (“socialist”) president of Senegal, found himself with a fortune of more than a billion dollars. After a change of president, judges put him in jail, in the hope of finding out where the money came from. Senegal is one of the world’s poorest countries (having no resources of any sort, but for fish devoured by Korean factory ships, which, I am sure, paid very well; the fish came back after the new president asked the Koreans to pay, and the French empire lent a military jet which takes pictures).

Living within our means” sounds good, but a sovereign country is not a family (contrarily to what Obama said).

The money within a country is not a store of value (only gold reserves are; most countries got rid of them). Instead, money enables the population to do a number of things. If there is not enough of money around, these things cannot be done.

Moreover, money, like blood, has to circulate.

However, it’s not doing that anymore, as the wealthiest store it, and have less use for it than the lower classes.

 

How Not To Live Within The Means Of the Wealthiest:

Take the case of France.

Suppose France borrowed a trillion Euros on the free market, at the present rate of less than 1%. Investors, in their despair, are ready to lend to France at that rate, on the ten year bond.

Such a borrowing would allow the government to augment enormously its spending: it could pay for the best universities in the world (as China is presently trying to do), it could finance all sorts of fundamental research, it could even fabricate large Thorium reactors, with the whole economy to go with them (mines in Brittany, U 233 breeders, etc.). Presto, no more energy and CO2 crisis, and reactors which could be sold worldwide.

The pessimist would bemoan that we cannot afford it.

Of course we can: it would cost, nothing.

How so?

Hopefully, inflation, over the next ten years, will be 1% per year, entirely cancelling the interest payments. Higher inflation, though, would devour the principal.

Is this all fancy? Today the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Britain’s finance and economy minister), G. Osborne, announced that Great Britain will, finally, reimburse its First World War debt. How? By borrowing at 4%, the lowest interest in Britain for a very long time.

Says Osborne: “This is a moment for Britain to be proud of. We can, at last, pay off the debts Britain incurred to fight the first world war. It is a sign of our fiscal credibility and it’s a good deal for this generation of taxpayers. It’s also another fitting way to remember that extraordinary sacrifice of the past.”

Actually it’s even better than that: some of the debt to be repaid comes from the Crimean War, the wars against revolutionary France, and even the South Sea Bubble (three centuries ago).

 

Borrowing Can Buy You The World:

As Dominique Deux, another esteemed commenter on this site, reminded me: “Britain did not get to be the world’s first industrial power by “living within her means” but by extensive long-term borrowing.”

Right.

It is even better than that: The Bank of England, the world’s first central bank, was created to support the Royal Navy. Basically, if the Navy needed money, the Bank would print it.

That was put to good use a century later. France was much larger economically, economically, not to say intellectually, than Britain, so fighting the French superpower seemed ridiculous. However, as France was in the way, this is exactly what Britain did in 1756-1815. Paying Prussia as an attack dog, creating a huge Navy, etc.

How?

By borrowing extravagantly. So much borrowing that Britain won, but for the little problem of the French engineered creation of the American Republic (a foundation which proved the undoing of both France and Britain…)

 

To Make Money, Government Can Just Grab It From The Filthy Rich:

Famously, confronted to the invasion of Francia by the Arab, Syrian, Berber, and generally hysterically Muslim armies, and navies, in 721 CE, the Merovingian government of Prime Minister (and effective head of state) Charles Martel, just nationalized the Catholic Church, selling its precious metals, and stones.

That was a stroke of genius, as it defeated both Christianism and (what the Franks viewed as) its Islamist sect. (OK, it took a full generation of total war.)

That method is more available, the more plutocrats there are.

Osborne (out hero of the day, the conservative plutophile who heads things financial in the UK), spoke yesterday of introducing a “Google Tax” of 25%. Says the Guardian: “Responding to outrage about the minimal contributions big corporations make to European governments, the Treasury is targeting Silicon Valley companies such as Google, Amazon and Apple, but the measures will reach beyond technology to high street chains such as Starbucks.

“We will make sure that big multinational businesses pay their fair share,” assured Osborne. That will not be easy: one is talking here about what some view as the richest criminal enterprises in the world.

Facebook made something like 100 million dollars of profit in Britain, and paid not even five thousand dollars of tax. The Guardian: “Google paid just £20m tax in the UK last year. But its actual British revenues were £5.6bn. The group as a whole has a profit margin of 20%, suggesting the company’s real profits in the UK could have been as high as £1.2bn. Taxed at the proposed 25% rate, this would deliver £280m a year in revenues for the Treasury from just one company.”

Having plenty enough of money to accomplish important work, is pretty much how the West went through the 30 glorious years of strong economic expansion after World War Two.

In practice, though, debt can be reduced by taxing the wealthy. Why to borrow from the rich, when one can tax them? Well it all depends if one lives in plutocracy (borrow), or in democracy (tax).

Under general-president Eisenhower, the wealthiest were made to contribute (Ike used his 93% upper margin tax rate; it was of course the same in Europe).

That’s how to live within the better means we could create for ourselves.

This means, first, defanging what, and those who, have too much power, be it thermonuclear, political, economic, or even ideological.

Democracy is not just a way of life, but the way to survival… Just what the cruelest, and fiercest instincts do not want.

Patrice Ayme’

Christ Preached Lethal Violence Against Non-Christians

December 3, 2014

He Was Obeyed, by Christians, and Muslims!

Islamism is a direct consequence of Christianism. Muhammad was initiated to all this god stuff by a close relative who was a monk. Who, in particular told him that the apparition in the desert was Archangel Gabriel. Muhammad the analphabet and Gabriel the super-angel were to have a long and fruitful relationship.

Islamism is violent, because Christianism taught violence. Two centuries before Muhammad’s birth, Christian monks, the famous “men in black” had devastated places of learning and people of wisdom, and in particular the world’s intellectual capital, then Alexandria. Jesus is a prophet of Islam.

What does the Bible say about Non-Christians? They are without God:

“Whosoever … abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” [2 John 9]

Looks Like The Jesus? It's Probably the Devil (Said the Cathars)

Looks Like The Jesus? It’s Probably the Devil (Said the Cathars)

Non-Christians are atheist! Not just that, but they are all antichrists:

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” [2 John 7]

They should be shunned. Neither marry nor be friends with them:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? … Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” [2 Corinthians 6:14-17]

They should be killed.

“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” [Dt.13:6-10]

Is this where the stoning habit of Islamists comes from? It would seem so:

Deuteronomy 17

“If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.”

At this point, the Jesus lovers are bound to come out and contemptuously observe:”This the Old Testament now, and you twerp, do not know even know the difference between the Old Testament, and the teaching of our Lord, Jesus. This is called the New Testament. Clearly you are no Bible Scholar.”

It is not as easy to become a Bible scholar than a Quranic scholar: the Bible has more words than the 83,000 words Quran (so says my computer). Yet, the Bible is not Quantum Mechanics, nor even Classical Mechanics. Actually it’s less rich than Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks.

 

In the New Testament Jesus stated that he had not come to change a word of the Old Testament. In Mathew 5:16-17 KJV, Jesus says: “Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in “no” wise pass from The Law, till all be fulfilled.”

The Law” is the Bible’s Old Testament.

So Jesus endorses fully all the demented sadism of his Old Testament dad, a lunatic devoured by Will to Power, who tortures children to death, just to punish their parents. Actually, Jesus, the love object of billions of cretins Christians, himself partakes in the Will To Mayhem, making Adolf Hitler himself sound like a considerate gentleman in comparison:

Here is a typical quote of the unhinged Jesus:

But those enemies of mine, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

That’s Luke 19:27. Yes, that is one of the four most sacred Evangels of the New Testament.

Say you know someone and all the time he says you should love others, as you love yourself, and then occasionally adds that he will kill you if you do not let him reign over you. What to do? Call the police! That’s what I do. Actually, that’s what civilization did, and Christians were short-circuited.

The Franks and Parisians did most of the short-circuiting, starting around 355 CE (when they elected the “Apostate” Julian Augustus). However Christianity became manically insane again in the period 1099 CE to 1789 CE (although never enough to threaten one of the major states; whereas in the Fourth and Fifth Century, it brought the fall of the Roman state in the West, and the near-annihilation of the Roman Orient in the Sixth and Seventh Century… and, indirectly, the victory of the Muslim raiders).

To all this fanatical Christians reply that this is not what it looks like, that it is taken out of context, that Jesus is love, that these are just parables, etc. It is the exact same sort of denialism that fanatical Muslims use, say about women: it’s because they love women so much, that they keep them between four walls, or allow them to drive not, or allow them to walk without a possessive man not, or insist they should be hidden below a blanket, or keep them in harems, or marry them religiously on the battlefield.

In truth, the differences between Hitler and Jesus are much smaller than tradition has it.

Both spoke of peace ad nauseam. That was just a front, as they both had a will to kill non-believers and their “enemies”. However, Hitler kept that between four walls, and left nothing in writing (I have read a lot of what one could call Hitler’s complete works).

Jesus, on the other hand, was loud and clear: “those enemies of mine, who would not that I should reign over them, slay them before me!”. The message was embraced by Saint Louis, Martin Luther, Calvin. Saint Louis wanted to torture his enemies to death, and wrote nothing would give him more pleasure. Calvin, a Frenchman who had taken over Geneva, really did it.

“Those enemies of mine, who would not that I reign over them, slay them before me!”

Oh, Jesus, we the vicious invaders anxious to reign all over, we love you! Who can deny the stroke of genius in the service of the son of man? How else would the Conquista of the Americas happen? Let alone Siberia?

Patrice Ayme’

Love Can Be An Authority

August 7, 2011

Abstract: The clown in chief gets all the tricolor flags out, parades in front of them celebrating himself, his blackness, while his debt reaches heavens. He just forgot to pay for it. He insists that “the USA is a AAA country, we all know this, make no mistake“. Meanwhile one of Obama’s killer toys causes sorrow, while strafing the natives on the other side of the planet, just because. All those events are causally related by the logic of the deliberately stupid.

The epic failure is global: even American left wing economist have bought the sycophantic line. The USA prefers oil & gas to… water itself, a choice which may leave the USA low and dry. Many American economists believe more of the same is the essence of the future, and they are wrong.

Well, there is no essence, but the Quantum, and it jumps around in unexpected way. Expect the unexpectable… But suspectable. With the Quantum, properly understood, the philosophy of suspicion has fused with the physics of probabilities.

***

***

 Great Triumph Of The Great Leader; He Made It To 50!

The leader celebrated his birthday in public, thousands in attendance, close to tears, there was singing. The great leader passed, discreetly waving, moved by the collective fervor, dozens of giant tricolor flags behind him, red, white… Adolf Hitler, of course.

And Barack Obama, de facto, August 4, 2011, apparently celebrating the passing of 100% GDP debt, and his abdication. Indeed the president had just renounced the pesky pretense of being master of his destiny, or leader of the USA. From now on, he would just watch, officially as a dozen Congress people would decide or apply automatic cuts, balanced between Medicare and whatever. When the “You guys” guy has run out of clichés, he is naked, and that’s what happens.

The two most important words in politics are: de facto. Out (of) fact. De facto, Obama is Tea Party. That he screams otherwise, despite the colossal evidence to the contrary, makes it even more so. De facto, Nixon was an extreme left winger, relatively speaking, by today’s lamentable standards.

***

Mr. Obama, Where Is Your Hoover Dam?

The worth of the debt of the USA has been the object of collective hallucination on the part of worldwide investors and the American public and government. American debt is worth very little. Why? Because the USA WILL DEFAULT. It’s only a matter of time. A lot of time, but a foreseeable time.

The U. S. Federal debt, and U.S. consumer debt was used for … consumption. Still is. Consumption consumes, by definition. As Christ said on his cross:”All is consumed“. Meaning he was finished. If Christ was American, he would have paid for his cross with crushing debt.

70% of the U.S. economy is consumption. One guesses that, just to have sustainability, one ought to balance consumption, that is, destruction, and construction. But it is not so. Obama could not build a bridge, let alone the equivalent of one of the many giant dams which republican president Hoover saw built during his tenure. (For example Obama could have built a High Speed Rail line… But he did not. Although the Eastern corridor was ripe for an upgrade.)

***

Hoover Did Public Works, FDR Made Even More, And Cleaned The Stables, BHO Did Nought:

The conflict between Hoover, an engineer by formation, and F.D. Roosevelt was extreme. FDR was a lawyer who had very high government responsibilities, such as Assistant Sec. of The Navy for seven years (but he was truly the man behind the Navy built-up, and especially the submarine force), and it was during World War One, when the German submarine force was terribly successful, for all too long, threatening to isolate Britain, and cut-off the USA from France. Then FDR was governor of New York state, and re-elected. A person of immense experience. His cousin Teddy, also another revolutionary U.S. president for this privileged family, stood-in as his father in law during his wedding (thus FDR was much closer to Teddy than is generally assumed, and was no doubt encouraged by his dashing mien).

Perfidiously, FDR ran against Hoover’s deficits. FDR wanted “immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures… abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagances”.

But FDR changed his tune, once elected: “I pledge you, I pledge myself to a New Deal for the American people… This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.”

In a way FDR was the anti-Obama: he campaigned conservatively (except for the repeal of prohibition, which he called for), but reigned revolutionarily.

FDR realized an enormous government intervention in the economy, and the cleanup of the banking system. Hoover thought enough enormous state sponsored works were in the pipeline. As events showed, FDR was right, and Hoover was wrong. Obama would have accused Hoover to be a far left wing liberal, and he would have found no words harsh enough for FDR. 

FDR shut down the banking system on day one of his presidency. What did Obama do that day? He celebrated himself. On day one, Obama celebrated Benito Mussolini style, chin sky high in front of the multitude, as if visited by Zeus himself. It’s funny, this chin thing the great leaders have. The elevated chin detracts from the rest.

***

FDR As Anti-Plutocrat:

The world has sunk in depression. Says FDR: “Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence….The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Who speaks this way nowadays, among the dwarves who are supposed to lead? (OK, they only lead with more fund raising from their plutocratic owners.) This present situation is in part explained by the vast de-politization, decerebration of much of the populations of the leading Western countries (especially in the USA: FDR got support from a vast tradition of recrimination, protests and large unions, both of which have pretty much disappeared from decades of propaganda to make most people stupid enough to be led by the nose by the masters).

One may notice that “Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money”, is the main line of the USA and the EU. Greece was lent hundreds of billions… to pay the interest on her debt to private banks. But of course the banks, or more exactly the managements of these banks are co-responsible, and should take a cut. And if they need too much help from the People, the People should take possession of them (= nationalization). Instead of giving the crooked bankers money for nothing, so they can keep on with their “false leadership“, as FDR put it.

However, debt is complicated; interest payment of the U.S. debt was 451 billion in 2008. It is projected to be only 411 billion in 2011. Yes, the debt augmented considerably, but the payments went down. Because, as the economy tanked, interest rates went down.

As I have long argued, now is the time to borrow maximally to create jobs. The failed banks which should have been nationalized should now spearhead this effort.

In: http//krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/the-arithmetic-of-near-term-deficits-and-debt/, Krugman points out that borrowing trillions would cost nought. Now.

But of course it ought to be to create intelligent jobs, highest value jobs. In other words, create jobs for those who will rebel, adopt FDR’s ideas, and throw down the plutocrats. So the plutocrats are not keen: they say no to the infrastructure bank.

The unemployment is a political choice, not an accident. A choice of Obama and his sponsors. Obama has chosen his class. It’s the class of Bush, the class which views most people as crumbs. Anything else is a big lie.

***

Quoting The Devil Approvingly:

Xinhua, the official newswire agency, wrote an editorial:  “The days when the debt-ridden Uncle Sam could leisurely squander unlimited overseas borrowing appeared to be numbered… mounting debts and ridiculous political wrestling in Washington have damaged America’s image abroad…. All Americans, both beltway politicians and those on Main Street, have to do some serious soul-searching to bring their country back from a potential financial abyss.”

The editorial recommended “substantial cuts” to “bloated social welfare costs” and a “gigantic military expenditure.” This echoed China’s top general, Chen Bingde, who told a press conference last month that as America deals with “difficulties in its economy … it would be a better thing if the United States did not spend so much money on the military.” He said so while standing next to Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Earlier in the week the Beijing-based Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. dropped its rating of the United States from A+ to A with a negative outlook: “the defects in the (U.S.) political structure exposed in the bipartisan struggle indicate that the U.S. government has difficulty in ultimately resolving the sovereign debt crisis.

Friday Standard & Poor followed Dagong, with the same terms. Xinhua noted approvingly that this “proved what its Chinese counterpart has done is nothing but telling the global investors the ugly truth.

Well all this boils down to child in chief Obama having not faced reality: he had total control, and, while the deficit exploded, he did nothing. No new taxes, for Obama, and knocking off many pre-existing taxes. Moreover, Obama invested in nothing. Oops, I forgot that big investment, the biggest of them all, Afghanistan.

Nowadays, investing a trillion into the real economy would cost nothing in GDP (because interests have collapsed, as Krugman explains).

One has to understand that, without investments, debt becomes unserviceable. One GROWS out of debt. The Russian debt to France was paid back, only because Russia grew out of it, 90 years later. Yes, 90. The American Federal debt of WWII was never paid back, really, but grown out of.

Debt and investment are separated by fools only.

Since Obama gets orders from banks, he cannot order them to invest in the real economy, that would contravene his orders. So he wants to create an infrastructure bank, a way to compromise, so he hopes audaciously. But Geithner, the creature of Wall Street, does not want to do so. Indeed, an infrastructure bank would make Wall Street lose its tight grip on the U.S. economy…. And thus on U.S. society (thus exposing Wall Street plotters and thieves to prosecution).

Indeed, Wall Street controls his boy Geithner; with them, the world is his oyster. And so on. Around it goes. A few dogs chasing money around in the wind, their mission in life. Applying social values more noble than mere monetary profit to themselves totally escapes this crowd of plotters.

***

The Violent Truth; A Drunk Is Under The Bridge:

The USA has not been taking care of itself. It’s like the old, sick, depressed, confused, overweight smelly drunk lying in urine for too long below a bridge. Nobody took care of the bridge, either, and now that work of art is falling apart, threatening to crush the drunkard. Who will dare to do something? Why should that scene be worth anything? That is the scene of American debt.

The president just showed he was a child who abdicated all responsibility, abdicating, as he did, in favor of Congress, where “supercommittees” are going to be created to decide of all what’s important. Including, supposedly, defense. By the way both the French and British parliaments approved the Libyan war. At least the semblance of representative democracy are been kept. There. In the USA, Congress did not vote on Libya.

What’s next? A super dictatorship? A bipartisan dictatorship? President plays golf, looking real cool, the child cannot do his job, so supercommittees of the bipartisan party rule?

Anybody travelling the USA can observe that the country is decrepit, and increasingly so. Out there in the boondocks, much of what people live in was built at the earliest, 50 years ago. But it was not built with good timber, as in the Middle Ages, or good stone, as in Renaissance Europe. Instead much was built in plywood, a mix of wood pulp and glue. It is now falling apart, and mold pervades it. Let alone the fire hazard.

Obama called a “stimulus” to rush money so that fire departments would not be closed, all over the USA. But even in Silicon Valley, the richest part, at least one police department closed, and a fire department of a major city of the valley of silicon soon will.

Meanwhile Afghans object to the invasion force in their midst. They are arming themselves. 38 imperial troopers went down when their chopper was shot down on takeoff. A few hours later, two French legionaires got killed, and five wounded, in a good old fashion assault against Taliban fortifications. A colonial war, without the colonization. Brute force, for nothing, just the heck of it.

Concludes the valorous soldiers war chief child Obama: “Their death is a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifice made by the men and women of our military and their families. We will draw inspiration from their lives, and continue the work of securing our country and standing up for the values that they embodied

Which kind of lives are those? Going to the other side of the earth, fighting to death, for the Islamist drug lords in Kabul?

Standing up for which values? Fighting for the Islamist Constitution of Afghanistan? And how does spending a trillion dollar a year on “defense” (in the Hindu Kusch, killing the natives) will help defend the USA? Bin laden was recruited and trained by the CIA (and its Saudi subsidiary).  So if one wants to go bomb and kill the origins of bin Laden, no needs not to go all the way to the other side of the Earth. The 9/11 commandos were trained in Germany and the USA, so why not to go attack that instead?

Standing up for which values? Everything indicates that the topmost values of the leaders of the USA are corruption, collusion,  connivance and confusion, in this order.

***

Debt For Nothing (Continuing):

One thing is clear: the USA ought to change from a fiscal and judicial context favorable to consumption, to one favorable to investment. Getting in debt for consumption is very different from getting in debt for investment. That is why I am bullish on Europe. And those who are bearish on Europe are wrong: The euro is just a bait. Sure it was good to eat, it was meant to be. There is a hook inside that delicious euro, a federal hook, and it’s starting to hurt. Pain does not prove that there will be no gain.

Even Greece has some recent infrastructure to show you (subway!) than the USA, and more of it. The only serious bridge (re)built in the USA right now the Oakland-San Francisco bay bridge. It has been made in China, for more than 20 years, an humiliation.

By comparison, a French private company built the world tallest bridge, the 3.5 mile long Viaduct de Millaut, in just three years. French, not Chinese engineering, employing French, not Chinese engineers! Economics without industry is only ruin of society.

***

The Empty Suit Is A Right Wing Cataclysm:

Under Obama the total federal deficit exploded. Under his watch, the Federal deficit went completely out of control.

It is a subtle thing, because much is hidden. Looked at it one way, the debt augmented 45% under Obama, in absolute value, from 10 trillion to 14.5 trillion (August 2011). The face value, official debt went from 80% of GDP (end of Bush II) to more than 100% of GDP. Soon we will be above 120% of GDP, the maximum, ever attained by the USA, during World War Two.

Of course, World War Two was a giant investment: the USA ended up owning the world, except China, the USSR (and Eastern Europe that Uncle Sam offered to Uncle Joe, with negotiating skills reminiscent of Obama).

However, many items are not counted in the 14.5 trillion. Some items pertaining to TARP (giving or lending money to the bankers who ruined the country; when it’s a gift, it’s counted in the deficit, when it’s lent, it’s not). Some pertaining to whatever. The total potential debt of the USA is more than 70 trillion dollars. And increasing fast.

Contrarily to what is said by the plutocratically sponsored politicians, debt is increasing fast, not because there were not enough cuts, but because there were too many cuts. What counts is not the value of debt, but the debt-valuable investment ratio. So I say.

Because the USA confuses economic activity with consuming consumption, that ratio stays bad, and the recent decisions, the recent abdication of Obama, guarantee that it will get way worse.

As the rating agency S & P pointed out, the politic positioning of the ill named “Republicans” makes it unlikely that taxes will be raised. Obama made the so called republicans’ beds, as he did nothing, when he could, and should have.

Differently from Italy, where the Italian government owes its debt to the Italian People, the USA owes its debt to foreigners, as Xinhua pointed out. Foreigners own approximately 50% of all the federal U.S. debt held by the public.

This means that, if foreigners feel that the USA cannot be trusted anymore, as a place of investment, the Federal government will suddenly be 20% short in the budget it has at its disposal. It could only compensate for that by making foreigners offers they cannot refuse. meaning very high interest rates (as happened with Greece).

***

The Empty Suit: Right Of The Tea Party?

That is the only question which is amusing enough. An article in the New York Times, “The Madman Theory“, points out that, Nixon was a “de facto liberal”. Although, at the times, he was evil personified as far as half of the USA was concerned, and most of the planet. Obama, in comparison, is, de facto, the most right wing president, ever. His mouth may be on the left, but his hands are on the extreme right.

We have known for a long time that Obama is way to the right of Nixon. I knew this on the day after his election as president: he went to work at a hedge fund in Chicago. That he does want to admit what it means makes it even more so. He is a bad negotiator, intentionally, beyond grotesque: he bears witness against himself.

Now Obama wants to make a billion, that’s Obama’s declared aim in life. Chin up! Higher! Mussolini is jealous! Further! The audacity of dope.

***

Anders Brievik’s Massacre In Norway:

I am for immigration. In a sense, I have been emigrating my entire life, I know how it feels when one does not belong. Sometimes it’s OK not to belong, and it helps the country one does not belong to spiritually, by opening to it new knowledge, enriching wisdom.

However, there is integration and integration, and integration ought not to be confused with disintegration. Examples abound, in history, where a civilization collapsed under a migratory flux. Immigration without integration at all is only disintegration of civilization, let alone explosion of edification.

Meaning? Norway brought 550,000 nationalized (OK, “naturalized”) immigrants in 15 years (that is more than 11% of the population). Out of that, officially, about half were extra-European Muslim (thus harder to integrate). That is way too much, way too fast. Dubai would not have naturalized one of them (OK, Dubai is racist, but also, prudent).

This crazed immigration does not explain the insane maniac’s convoluted thinking process. It just made it unavoidable. I was myself bombed by an extreme right wing French commando of Breivik like characters, long ago.

That is actually ironical: Breivik had serious deficiencies in his fascist, racist culture: there is an old, fascist, not to say racist current in France, which helped inspire even Hitler. Breivik wanted to change the “multiculturalist” regime in France (Sarko, multicultural, really?)

Breivik wanted to set up a nuclear device on the Eiffel Tower. It was completely silly, as the overall principle of France is integration, not multiculturalism. (The French principle of integration was weakened in the last few decades under withering criticism by the Americano-Northern European cultural multiculturalist opportunism, but that critique is now in full disarray, and retreat, so one suspects that French integrationism is going to return with a vengeance, as the Qaddafi clan can testify.)

Much of French ancestry can be traced to North Africa and the Middle East (Arab, Berbers, Jews), genetic tests show. (OK, and Italians descend from Iraqi agricultural immigrants, 7,000 years ago!)

Overall, a peculiar culture, now identified with the United Nations and Human Rights, a culture which one should call Paleolithic, triumphed. A paleolithic moral diet.

At least it triumphed ever since slavery was outlawed in 660 CE (forgetting about lamentable episodes such as most Crusades, “Saint” Louis the Cruel Butcher, the insane Religious wars, and the confused immoral Louis XIV). So, if Breivik was talking about culture, against and swallowing hard core Islam, France is where the successful imperialism is. The French like culture is triumphing worldwide, much more than any other cultural current, at this very moment, as the head of the UN go teach the Syrian dictator human rights.

***

Frack Me Up!

European bashing is a strange thing. American economists, even “left” wing economists (Krugman, Stiglitz, Johnson) do it a lot. It seems to me that the Europeans are trying harder than the Americans to get their house in better order. The USA was economically fortunate to have plenty of energy, for 150 years, at least. In places, as it still does in some parts of Iraq today, crude oil was gathering in lakes at the surface. Starting in Pennsylvania, the gods made the USA the world’s first producer of oil, for most of the age of oil. That was extended, after 1945, by a pact with Middle East feudal devils.

Now all American hopes are in fracking. Fracking consists in injecting one truck of pure acid underground, mixed with ten trucks of water, adding many agents meant to kill all life (in case it survived the acid!)

But how well will fracking work? In truth, nobody knows. But the entire USA has bet that it will work, that cheap energy will keep on coming. Top economists take this for granted. If it does not, the economical disaster will be enormous, because the USA expects to keep on going with an energetically inefficient economy. If fracking backfires (literally) the USA will roast.

How could fracking backfire? Well, the process of creating fractures underground is renewed many times in the same well. The deadly acidic mix is pushed down, then regurgitated, brought back up to the surface, and gas is extracted, until pressure drops, and a new deadly acidic mix is prepared, pushed down again.

As this cycle is repeated, fractures keep on propagating. Most of the well is horizontal (the drilling bit can be steered). A drawing shows that, after a while, fractures should reach up, and contaminate the water table. And that is where the economics fail, because water is much more precious than oil, or gas. One cannot drink oil, and one cannot breathe gas.

***

Desalination Requires Energy:

Desalination plants can bring water in: Barcelona built a massive plant quickly to lessen its imports of water from the French Hautes Alpes, 700 kilometers away. But Barcelona is on the sea. Huge European companies are selling desalination plants all around the world, and no doubt some progress will be done using renewable energy, such as solar, more than now.

However, desalination plants need clean sea water, and a lot of energy. Therein a vicious circle: if your energy destroys your water, you lose both water, and energy.

The main fact of economics: it’s all about energy management.

***

What Is The Essence Of Quantum Physics?

Quantum (De Broglie) hypothesis: Any natural phenomenon evolves according to a wave associated to it, which determines its existence. Its wavelength is inversely proportional to its momentum, and proportional to Planck constant.

The Quantum (De Broglie) hypothesis has various spectacular consequences, such as the penetration of forbidden regions, as waves do not stop on a dime (this is the tunnel effect).

The point is that the Quantum is all about waves, existence waves, no less. And those waves are globally determined by the geometry that can be reached (in the wavy sense of reaching, which entails penetration, as I just said, a phenomenon already known in classical electromagnetism).

When one starts to think in a Quantum way, a lot of the real world is illuminated anew.

***

Existence Is Quantum, Or Is Not:

So what to think of philosophers who talk about existence, time, nothingness, and know no Quantum Physics? Well, they have an excuse, if they were contemporaries of the birth of the Quantum. But their philosophies do not have that excuse, nowadays.

Now, if we want to think about the world, truly, we have to follow, and respect, the Quantum paradigm.

***

Does Authority Rest On Guns, Ultimately, Always?

To a great extent. However, there is something as proximal reason. The Nazis did not have as much guns as the German army. They resolved that by seducing the army. Actually, the Nazis were nearly all about seduction. OK, they killed 10,000 opponents in 1932. However, they told voters that they represented a new order, a new hope, and they were audacious, that was guaranteed. If Germans voters had known what the Nazis were really in the bed of the plutocracy (they claimed the opposite, the Nazis claimed they would submit the filthy rich), and that the Nazis truly planned another world war, German voters would not have voted for them in national and regional elections, and referendums.

Meanwhile the Nazis, and, in particular, Hitler, seduced the army chiefs. With the army wrapped around their little finger, they had big guns, indeed. But they got them through love.

The Germans were seduced with very big lies, quite a bit as Obama seduced those who wanted change in the USA, and all he did was more of the same, more plutocracy, more military-industrial complex, more debt for nothing, more loopholes for the hyper rich, and his hedge fund friends. Alright Obama talks against his billionaires and his hedge fund sponsors. So did Hitler, on an astronomical scale, and, truly, he did the opposite.

The louder Hitler was, the more suspicious one should have been. Hitler used to holler about his desire to protect peace and minorities. Such were his great themes. This has been forgotten now, so Hitler’s seduction of the masses is now mysterious.

All what was in the way of peace and minorities, Hitler screamed, was the Versailles Treaty (a colossal lie, generally repeated ad nauseam by pseudo intellectuals, to this day).

Lies, spring, eternal. The leopard does not have dots because they are pretty, but because they are confusing, and masks the true shape of the flesh eating monster. Voracity comes with camouflage.

One does not have to chose between love and guns. Love can bring control of the guns. Love can commandeer guns. Love too, is authority.

But authority without truth is, ultimately, only the ruin of power.

***

Patrice Ayme