Posts Tagged ‘Education’

Stupid, Or Unreal Environment, Makes For Stupid Children

December 23, 2017

Two Convenient Ways To Make Stupid Children:

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

COGNITIVE INEQUALITY

April 23, 2016

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

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

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

In The US, Guns Are Cheap, Brains Expensive.

In The US, Guns Are Cheap, Brains Expensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrice Ayme’

For Our Creator, Evolution

October 3, 2015

Mammals we are,

Milk we need.

Or we won’t even be.

Thinkers we are,

Love we need.

Or we won’t even think.

Love tells us,

What to feel.

Love:

Milk for the soul.

We, bodies and souls

From a tangled web blossom.

Not just the quantum web,

Holding the universe together,

But even the web,

Of the highest values,

Holding minds together.

Values we learned to become

While other minds,

Gave us,

What we are.

No Love, No Chipmunks. No Heart. No Mind. And No Cuteness.

No Love, No Chipmunks. No Heart. No Mind. And No Cuteness.

 

Patrice Ayme’

Power Hinders Knowledge

February 23, 2015

Man is the wisdom animal, Homo Sapiens, yet, still first a beast, when wisdom is not brought to bear.

Wisdom has a soul of its own. The human beast has a different problem: eliminating the competition, hence an obsession with power, the first step towards eating the enemy. Interestingly, Paul Krugman is increasingly entering this dark universe, with explanatory schemes fully compatible with them (although they may leave many of his normal readership behind for now).

Wisdom, in man, has always been technological. The genus Homo evolved without serious canines, no claws, or (generally) horns,  and little strength, because his hands were made to carry weapons, and his arms to swing them hard, and precisely. This made humans, even female and young, obviously extremely dangerous to all mighty beasts (who therefore learned to take a wide berth, from buffalo to lion). We have evolved with that, and through that, this technological singularity, not to say singularization, for at least five million years.

Earliest Glasses Depicted, Starring Hughes de Provence (1352).

Earliest Glasses Depicted, Starring Hughes de Provence (1352).

A bane of civilization was that as it advanced and became ever more precise and learned, the most competent scholars and artisans, upon reaching the age of their greatest expertise, middle age in the Middle-Ages, were unable to work or study. Glasses were invented around 1285 CE in the republic of Florence (please notice the word “republic”; the republic was established in 1115 CE; because it cared about the public, it invented glasses, or so I say).

Science is us, and it protects.

In “Knowledge Isn’t Power”, Paul Krugman observes that: “sounding serious and being serious are by no means the same thing, and some of those seemingly tough-minded positions are actually ways to dodge the truly hard issues.

The prime example of recent years was, of course, Bowles-Simpsonism — the diversion of elite discourse away from the ongoing tragedy of high unemployment and into the supposedly crucial issue of how, exactly, we will pay for social insurance programs a couple of decades from now. That particular obsession, I’m happy to say, seems to be on the wane.”

It was both an obsession, and a delusion. An obsessive delusion: creating a terrible crisis now to avoid a possible one, in a few decades. It worked; much of the Obama years were wasted, pondering it, and making savage cuts, including in future defense systems and science.

Then Paul turns to “a new form of issue-dodging packaged as seriousness on the rise. This time, the evasion involves trying to divert our national discourse about inequality into a discussion of alleged problems with education.

And the reason this is an evasion is that whatever serious people may want to believe, soaring inequality isn’t about education; it’s about power.

Just to be clear: I’m in favor of better education. Education is a friend of mine. And it should be available and affordable for all. But what I keep seeing is people insisting that educational failings are at the root of still-weak job creation, stagnating wages and rising inequality. This sounds serious and thoughtful. But it’s actually a view very much at odds with the evidence”

Paul ought to have been more precise here. The plutocrats and their obsequious servants allege workers don’t have enough brains to work, except in low qualification jobs… As demonstrated by the fact they earn little.

It’s like saying that the king of France wore a 15 million euros costume because he had been chosen by god.

The Rate Of Return on Investment is highly dependent upon new technology, and thus new science, and thus education and even intellectuality.

Thus fighting savagery is not just a question of civilization, it’s a question of ROI.

Rising profits for the few is both cause and consequence of monopoly power. Ultimately, the monopolist capture education itself. To get a post high school education in the USA right now, in a prestigious university comes easily for those who can pay the university twice the post-tax income of the median family income. In other words, it is reserved to the 1% or so.

The CEO class is entangled with the hereditary plutocratic class, which justifies its existence by giving exaggerated salaries to CEOs.

Any civilization is in a race between technological progress and ecological exhaustion. That means a race between education, science, philosophy and savagery, obscurantism, superstition. Any society is in a race between inequality and justice. To persist, let alone improve, the human condition, these races need to be won.

Humanity is in a quiet period right now, a bit similar to the withdrawal of the sea before a tsunami. It’s obvious terrible, never seen before problems are brewing at the horizon. The greenhouse effect is going to enter non-linear acceleration any year now. The human population is soon to be nine billions while the climate becomes ever more erratic.

All sustainable societies, those which lasted centuries, made it so that the few could not end up with all the power. Otherwise they quickly went from Republic to plutocracy: the Middle-Age Florence is an example.

The Roman Republic lasted 5 centuries, but it had an absolute limit on the wealth a family could control. That law broke apart when Rome became a global power, as the plutocrats were able to evade taxation. A century later the Roman empire at its apogee was able to use taxes on wealth to finance education and welfare, but, after the death of Trajan, this system broke apart, and Rome fell in terminal plutocracy. The fate that awaits us.

***

In the 1960s, a young university professor could achieve instantaneously an upper middle class way of life. Now only senior professors, after a few decades of career, can hope to do so.

And this “career” itself is a continual harassment, with less than half the “professors” achieving tenure.

And this is true all over the economy. And not just in the USA. In countries such as France, the teachers’ salaries and the esteem the profession gets, are so low, that the state is reduced to find volunteers at the National Agency for Employment (that is among the unemployed).

The piling up of money on a few individuals has broken down the meritocracy. “Merit” is now defined as the moral ability to admire financial gouging, and the will to partake in it.

This rapacious mood, of serving high finance, has infected all of society, and has made more sedate activities such as teaching, or thinking, less valued.

The continual evaluation of the worth of individual according to how much they earn and can afford, as the public sector shrink, is ruining not just the economy, but also souls and minds, thus leading to a lack of ability to soberly assess what ails us.

What ails us is the shrinking of the public sector. Education ought to be essentially something for everybody, something for the public. Instead it has turn into what privilege can enjoy, the entry to the higher class.

That was tried before, by the Celts. Only the upper class could access to reading and writing, jealously guarded by the Druids. Thus the Celts got defeated by the better educated Roman masses.

The Celts (aka “Gauls”, Gaulois) had a much larger army, with a much larger cavalry. They also had better weapons (they actually fabricated and sold to the Roman the weapons which equipped the Roman army)

However, although Caesar succeeded at some point to infuriate most of Gallia, deep down inside, the Celts knew that the Roman civilization, Romanitas, was founded on a better mentality.

This why the Celts, Germans, and Brits once converted to Romanitas, never rejected it (the Boudicca revolt in Britannia, just as the Vercingetorix revolt in Gallia, were pretty much driven by hot heads; differently from what happened in Judea, they were not repeated).

This is also why, once the Franks came up with their superior No-Slavery model of civilization, that was not rejected, either (except for the outcast movement to enslave Africans, launched by the king of Portugal in the Middle -Ages, which ended miserably in 1865).

Fighting inequality enables more to contribute their minds to the advancement of wisdom, thus brings higher wisdom.

That’s why the Punic and Celts civilizations (truly rough plutocracies) were replaced by the Greco-Roman, in turn replaced by the Franks, and why the Franks, by 1000 CE, had the most advanced technological civilization.

Overall, although here and there China, India and the Middle Earth had some elements of superiority. Europe was pulling ahead, because the lack of slaves forced to use machines and devices (glasses, clocks) ever more. Where a Chinese or Indian emperor wanted something done, an army of slave children could do it. Whereas in Europe, sovereigns had to negotiate with grouchy old men.

That was so true that, when the Mongol Khans ruled from Hungary to Vietnam, and Moscow to Southern India, they made irresistible offers to Parisian artisans to build fancy machines in Karakorum.

Education in a civilization means equality first. Power to knowledge means no power to the few, because power to the few means power to the worst. And very little brainpower, overall.

It is because woman was weak, that she became ever wiser. Making a few humans strong as gods, we go against the very principle that made humanity evolve as the better angel of creation.

Patrice Ayme’

SEXISM HOBBLES CIVILIZATION

November 4, 2014

DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FEMALES IS UNSAFE FOR CIVILIZATION:

Why did Athenian direct democracy fail? A case can be made that it did, because Athens was too sexist.

Some will raise their eyebrows, as I accused Aristotle to have fostered monarchism and plutocracy, by teaching directly the plutocrats who extinguished Greek democracy (for 22 centuries!) Thus, Aristotle destroyed democracy.

However, in the history I narrated, Sparta, urged by the (Athenian philosopher) Demosthenes and his friends, went to war against Macedonia’s Antipater, and his army of mercenaries… And Sparta nearly won. Athens sat on her hands (Athens went to war later, way too late, after Sparta had been completely defeated).

Why did Athens not support Sparta in a timely manner against Aristotle’s Executor (that’s Antipater)? It may have had to do with sexism.

Delphi's Sanctuary Of Apollo (Who Spoke Through The Pythia)

Delphi’s Sanctuary Of Apollo (Who Spoke Through The Pythia)

[The Pythia was a woman; the sanctuary started with the worship of Gaia. Ethylene vapors helped…]

Sparta was a fascist system, but, in some ways, it was way more advanced than Athens, or all other Greek cities. In particular, Sparta was a very anti-sexist society: girls were trained like boys, in the nude, for the toughest physical activities. They had lots of freedom, in many ways.

The enmity between Athens and Sparta may have been born from the former being sexist, and the other, just the opposite. The crowd of thinkers around Socrates, which was very attracted to Sparta’s charms, may have been so, because of this trait precisely: see below.

In any case, Athenian society suffered from an excess of aggressivity at the start of the Peloponnesian war, and  more caution from a feminine input may have made the difference (Athens’ annihilation of Melos, and attack against Syracuse, after throwing Alcibiades in Sparta’s arms are example of ill conceived aggression which voting mothers in the Assembly would have certainly voted down).

A sexist society is at a disadvantage: not only are the women forced to be moronic, but they can only teach their children moronically, being morons themselves.

Maybe that’s why the Middle East, thanks to the sexist interpretation of the Qur’an has been so stupid, for so long, overall. Sexism does not just oppress women, it oppresses boys: it makes them less intellectually performing than if their mothers were fully endowed. In any case, it clearly does not help. (The same argument can be extended in favor of direct democracy: in a direct democracy people vote directly on laws and decisions, as they did in Athens; so they are motivated to become more intelligent, creating a virtuous spiral up of ever greater smarts, as evidenced in Switzerland.)

Giant corporations imposing the notion that female nipples are unsafe, are not just moronic, but are themselves, considering their enormous clout and power, unsafe for civilization (be it only because they foster stupidity).

Why we need sexual equality to be institutionally imposed has to do, ultimately, with brains. Yes, female brains may be different in some genetic ways, from males ones (because, maybe, of different neurohormones, sometimes). And it’s true that, overall, female mental performance in the last 3,000 years, has come short.

The latter situation is entirely due to sexism, the poor man’s plutocratic impulse. Up to around 1850, even in the USA and Britain, a woman who married entered what was called “civil death.

The general abuse women were submitted to is in striking contrast with the long recognized fact that top female brains have been as capable as males ones: this is evidenced by the many leaders, who, even millennia ago, were women. The Magna Mater, Great Mother, Cybele Cult, which reigned over Middle Earth for millennia had God as a woman (the Virgin Mary of the Christians is a pale echo of that).

Carthage was founded by a queen, Dido, nearly 29 centuries ago. Even earlier, there had been famous, important, female pharaohs. When the Frankish empire became Western civilization, in the Sixth Century, replacing the decaying Roman State, there were no less than seven reigning queens in a century (I counted them). The last Frankish Queen, Bathilda, is the world’s first monarch on record, who had slavery outlawed. (That’s how slavery disappeared from Europe.)

Even Plato had recognized that females were the intellectual equivalent of men. And he may even have implicitly stated that they were superior: Plato adulated Socrates. And yet…

It is striking that all teachers of Socrates are women. And some are listened to religiously. By everybody. Pythia, the oracle at Delphi, was a towering figure of Ancient Greece: “Know Thyself and nothing in excess” was her motto. Delphi’s Oracle was actually an institution of wisdom managed by women over centuries. Delphic puzzling wisdom taught Socrates what came to be known later as the Socratic method. Socrates claims that the Pythia launched him on his quest for wisdom.

Asphasia of Miletus was Socrate’s teacher of rhetoric. She was a top philosopher (and became Pericles’ second wife, after he divorced, and married away his first one!)

In Plato’s symposium, Socrates says: “…the philosophy of love I learned from Diotima of Mantinea… [she] was my instructress in the art of love, and I shall repeat to you what she said to me….”

The Pythia invented the Socratic method, and Diotema Platonic love.

For the longest time, we were told women could not do science, or mathematics. However Emilie du Chatelet discovered ENERGY, and distinguished it from momentum.

Newton had confused momentum and energy; discovering energy makes Emilie more important than her boyfriend Voltaire… and a more original, and important, thinker than Einstein.

Energy is the core concept of contemporary physics. No less.

In the Twentieth Century, Emmy Noether was a towering mathematician.

There is a problem with women, though: Emilie du Chatelet went one boyfriend too far, and died from the birth of her fourth child, at age 42 (and, slowed down by three children, she had blossomed late as an intellectual; she was a global thinker). Emmy Noether died of an ovarian cyst at only 53.

The fragility of women’s health was greatly due to childbirth. In the European Middle Ages, the average child bearing woman would survive only ten years to the birth of her first child (who would die soon, too!) Now this is history, thanks to higher technology.

In prehistoric tribes, women collaborated intellectually as much as men. A civilization which can make female brains all that they can be, is a civilization with twice more brains… And intelligent children (as women are in the closest contact, and educate them for the first few years). Sexist societies are in contradiction with basic human ethology (the normal behavior of humans, their default state, what they are made to operate optimally in).

The easiest way to a superior civilization, is to let women become as brainy as men are allowed to be.

There are encouraging signs, such as more women registered now in universities of the USA than there are men.

Yet… How can we preach against sexual discrimination while discriminating against female skin?

Patrice Ayme’

The West: Hong Kong In Reverse?

October 5, 2014

In Hong Kong, students are demonstrating. Beijing plutocrats are throwing at them what they can: professional politicians, popular singers, and professional gangsters from the renowned triads.

This is what happens when you educate your youths too well: they get ideas, and contest the rule of the alpha male, in this case the omnipotent president Xi (who claims an official right to rig elections by choosing the three candidates to lead Hong Kong; in the West, the process is the same, but behind closed doors).

Cynics will sneer that this was the whole idea about degenerating the educational system in the West since the (world) disturbances of 1968 (which topped in the USA, France, and Prague). Precisely to avoid what is happening in Hong-Kong now.

How come the left in the West is a right? The answer is obvious: “democracy” is just a sham.

Let’s nevertheless waste a few minutes to describe the right that calls itself a left…. Now that France has a so called “socialist” government which governs on the right of the official French right, this burning question comes back to the fore, six years after Obama sold himself, body and soul, to the greediest financial sector in the history of civilization.

In the last 20 years, the self-described “left” came to power in the USA (twice: Clinton, Obama; moreover Reagan had to govern with a Congress controlled by democrats), in Germany (Schroeder, and now an union government of CDU and SPD), in Britain (a decade of Blair, Brown). France is the extreme of that: she enjoyed decades of “socialist” rule (Mitterrand, Jospin, Hollande).

The result is everywhere the same: plutocracy has kept encroaching (as depicted in Piketty’s “capital). There is even worse: the educational systems have collapsed, all over the West.

Indeed, in 1900, the West had, by far the best educational systems in the World. Now the results are eloquent. They are established by PISA, a subdivision of the OECD (the Organisation De Co-operation Economique et Development, in its original French; it was founded, and is based, in Paris).

France, Britain and the USA completely fail their new generations. Refined tests on problem solving show that the youngsters of these nations are three years late in their mental development on Asian students.

Apparently, the mental retardation has set quite a while ago, because present date politicians do not understand the problem. It’s simple, though: these countries made a huge effort in national education a century ago. Not so much anymore.

To get a good education in 1950, one went to public school. Now one goes to private school. The quality of education is just as abysmal, studies suggest. But the networking is everything

Valls is a theoretician of greed: he can’t imagine anything else as a human motivation. At least that’s what he said as much about GPA.

It’s a bit like Lenin’s apology of dictatorship. Lenin could not imagine a more effective government than dictatorship.

Valls is not pecuniary greedy, or let’s say he can wait, as the greed for power is even more direct than the one for money. My tolerance exhausted itself after he made Macron economy minister. Macron’s career is a short resume’ of the genetics of the cancer that infects the West most: a know-nothing, made into a top finance inspector who teaches the world’s most notorious bank how to evade taxes and financially conspire, thus putting himself into orbit for highest rule.

The Romans had the Cursus Honorum, we now have the Cursus Damnarum. In the Cursus Honorum, would-be politicians, after a top education, became first top officers in the Roman army. And then, only then, would go back to politics.

Because Rome had strict term limits, politics was spread among the many. For example a Consul had full power for just a month, and then, after his one year term, could not be re-elected for another year.

Here, of course I am talking of the full Roman Republic, not the diseased system which agonized for centuries after Augustus came to power. Conventional historians prefer to talk about the latter, because they are the Gibbons of the plutocratic system we have the dubious honor to enjoy.

How could the so-called left not be a right?

It’s all about how politicians are selected. First, they are most greedy. They are all about the Will To Power.

Second, if not 100% greedy, they are somewhat deranged: they really believe that, with their puny minds, and extravagantly modest propositions, in these most alarming circumstances, they will really make a difference.

Third, they give themselves what scientific psychologists, the ethologists, call “moral license”. That’s the idea that, if one has made what one perceives as a good deal, or has the right to trample others, somewhat.

Indeed, the leaders of the West now, in their collective, have rights not really different from that of the omni-president Xi and his colleagues. It is for example against the law in France to insult one of the goons of the government. The powers that the top politicians in the USA have, are awesome.

And forget about checks and balances, as the presidency of W. Bush demonstrated! The entire USA was committed to a war crime course in 2003 with as much ease as Nazi Germany in 1933.

And please don’t tell me that’s ancient history. The present war against ISIS/ISIL/ “Caliphate”/Daech springs directly from this. The essence of the power of that organization is that the tribes that the USA struck against in 2003 are now sitting on their hands at best (when they are not outright helping the Islamist insurgents).

This entire political system of the West rests on greed and delusion. It’s a system of thoughts and moods, where greed, sugar-coated with the appearance of altruism, rules.

Blossoming plutocracy is a consequence. And the more it goes, the more education, reflection and civilization, degenerate.

The type of remedy needed can be observed in the streets of Hong-Kong.

It is easy for the Hong-Kong protesters: they want what the West already has. In the West what is needed has to be invented. Looking around (Switzerland), or learning history (fully Republican Rome, Athens), will help the imagination.

The real problem is that there is no progressive guidance. A proof is my struggle in philosophical circles right now to impose the correct view on Aristotle. Aristotle was first and foremost, the greatest architect of plutocracy ever. That’s how, and why, he got to be viewed as the greatest philosopher ever.

Everybody drank the poisonous cool-aid, ever since.

Something similar is happening now, live: Krugman’s position of Quantitative Easing (giving money to the largest, most powerful banks) is (still) viewed as highly progressive… And so apparently, is austerity.

And where is the money found to fund all this austerity? Some of it is found all the way into the bone. Fundamental education (That’s now called the “Common Core” in the USA), and fundamental research.

Obama is urging schools to teach the Common Core, and that’s good. (It’s even better that it costs him nothing, as the Federal Education budget is just 1%. Always this 1% thing.)

Maybe, if he had been taught the Common Core, Prime Minister Valls would be able to logically determine he stands on the right of the National Front’s Marine Le Pen, in several dimensions.

Maybe, if he had been taught the Common Core, Obama would fund fundamental research: unbelievably, he has been cutting into the bone there… Just when everything is becoming possible, the leadership of the West is trying to make the impossible possible, by closing the future to progress.

Patrice Ayme’