Posts Tagged ‘Harvard’

Do Violence, Bias & Abuse Help Research?

January 16, 2016

Sexism is not humanly, ethologically, culturally, economically, civilizationally, emotionally, poetically, romantically and scientifically correct. Moreover it flows and then encourages, a general mood of violence, abuse, exploitation against all and any human being. It also rests on many a stupidity, thus foster stupidity. But, as we will see, there is worse.

Thanks to Sean Carrol for an  excellent essay condemning abusive harassment of women in science: “We Suck (but we can be better)”. A reminder: sexist research found, decades ago, that the brains of women and men were different. Many powers jumped on that result to claim the poor results of women in science, or the intellect in general, were thus justified.

However, upon closer examination, that was simply not true. Unsurprisingly, it was found female and male brains are not quite the same, except that one could not tell, and some of the differences are the opposite of what’s expected: most brains are a haphazard mosaic of female and male features.

Researchers have identified several structural differences between the brains of men and women, but they form changing mosaics from individual to individual, making it impossible to tell the sex of an individual based solely on MRI images of the brain like the one above.

Researchers have identified several structural differences between the brains of men and women, but they form changing mosaics from individual to individual, making it impossible to tell the sex of an individual based solely on MRI images of the brain like the one above.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

In the end, therefore, human beings are not just bisexual, but multisexual. To boot, the varying influence of some hormones rule, haphazardly, while having nothing to do with pure intellectual performance.

The reason for the intellectual equality between human sexes is obvious: prehistoric life required women to be pluripotent, because they had to replace men. When men were far away hunting big game, patrolling territory, or at war, women had to be able to replace them completely, even for defense and hunting. More recently, Roman legionnaires were very surprised when they discovered that German women wielding swords turned out be what prevented German men to retreat.

The reason for having a non-sexist society is that we double the number of brains, thus increase considerably the number of ideas. It was obvious all along that females could perform at the very highest mental level: Emilie du Chatelet, after all, discovered the concept of energy, ½ mv^2 (Newton confused energy and momentum, apparently). She also discovered a few other things, such as infrared radiation, although she died in childbirth.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/non-locality/

So sexism is a form of abuse, and, ultimately, not just a form of abuse of particular individuals, but of society itself, as it deprives society of half of its best elements.

And that is the connection with the violence made to graduate students. The American fundamental research system depends upon 120 institutions. However, many of the most prestigious universities, in their most prestigious departments depend upon a system of exploitation, or even abuse, of their students.

It works this way, even in public universities: the graduate students make all the necessary work (be it basic research or basic undergraduate teaching, or both). However some of these university departments have ridiculously low rates of attribution of the PhD. Say 10%. This means they use to teach, or do research students who, statistically, have no probability to get what they are after.

I personally witness ultimate violence in some of the world’s most famous universities. All the way to murder (I may give more details in a further version of this essay).

In 1998, Jason Altom, a graduate student in chemistry at Harvard, took his own life. Renowned among his contemporaries as both an extraordinarily talented scientist and a meticulous personality, he left behind a pointed note:

“This event could have been avoided,” the note began. “Professors here have too much power over the lives of their grad students.” The letter recommended adoption of a three-member faculty committee to monitor each graduate student’s progress and “provide protection for graduate students from abusive research advisers. If I had such a committee now I know things would be different.” It was the first time, a columnist for The Crimson observed later, that a suicide note took the form of a policy memo.

It seems clear in the behavior of Harvard’s (Nobel Prize) Corey. By telling his star student who committed suicide that, after five years, he had made “no intellectual contribution”, Corey was actually committing a crime. OK, the law does not strike this sort of abuse yet for what they are: potentially lethal abuse. Why? Because this is so typical of what happen in so many graduate department in the USA. It’s a bit as when there were slaves everywhere in the USA: it was legal, and it felt normal.

It is important to remedy this. How? Notice science was not as cut-throat in the 1960s: young professors could afford to buy a house next to a prestigious university (it’s not the case anymore). Young professors were typically on tenure track, graduate student were treated decently, etc.

Then things changed: American man had landed on the moon, science was not needed anymore. Investment in science went down, culminating with Congress yanking out the super collider. Society decided to do science and intellect on the cheap. Cut-throat academia came into being.

Treating women students well enough to have as many of them as men will improve quality, it will also force society to realize that research cannot depend upon abuse and exploitation of people, but its exact opposite: the fragile blossoming of ideas rejects relations brimming with the grossest powers.

Rejecting violence, exploitation and abuse will force society to put more (relative) resources into (fundamental) research, the way it used to be, not so long ago. Instead of treating graduate students as modern slaves, universities will have to recognize their humanity, dignity, hence foster their responsibility and independent judgment, producing higher quality thinking. Ultimately thinking blossoms from the debate of many minds, and not just the celebrity cult. Cutting throats does not help.

However, a cut-throat establishment may want research to be in its image, abusive and exploitative, to justify its own mood. Hence the present plutocratic university system is not here by accident, engaging into satanic behavior, just because bad things happen. Far from it. To teach celebritism, oligarchism, and even abuse, exploitation, sadism, and inhuman behavior is entirely what the present educational system sees, secretly, as its mission.

Patrice Ayme’

Plutocratic Universities Are Not Universal

April 3, 2015

Nietzsche thought that human society was motivated mostly by the “Will to Power“. Ethological studies on various advanced animals, including primates, confirm the importance of the Will to Power, indeed.

How does one exert power? One can use whips and chains, claws and fangs, but that’s a lot of work, it could be dangerous, and it damages the slaves. Ultimately, raw physical violence on most of its individuals makes a society underperform intellectually relatively to a society where people are mostly free. A slave society, where slaves are in chains, is too preoccupied by brawn, the brutal force of physical constraints, thus not brains: it does not become very smart… And thus such a society gets walloped as more brainy societies get more advanced technologically from their higher smarts (including in crucial military technology).

The best way for a class to exert maximal sustainable power in a society is thus not through whips, chains, and the police, but by controlling minds. Thus by controlling the educational system, thus master ideas and dominant moods.

Plutocratic Universities Are All About Leading The Sheep

Plutocratic Universities Are All About Leading The Sheep

[The excellence of maximizing profits: Veritas!]

The more democratic the society, the more spread-out quality education. The more oligarchic, the less it is.

As a US academic, I was asked to please be lenient with student athletes (they were failing scientific classes).

Student athletics brings up to 80 million dollars a year to some US colleges (through TV contracts; it’s highly profitable, as the athletes are not paid commensurately).

University tuition is now so high in the USA, even at (top) public universities, that the middle class cannot afford it (except by taking un-extinguishable loans). This is true even at institution such as the University of California which were founded with the explicit aim to provide free education to the most intellectually qualified students, independently of their wealth.

Even those who have taken loans have to be nice with the powers that be, if they want to earn enough to reimburse their loans. The chains they wear afterwards are not made of iron, but of debt.

We are in situation where financial class, and the positive attitude towards the wealthiest, rather than intellectual class, is becoming the selection criterion.

Too much control of the educational system by the powers that be brings the smarts down.

But the powers that be may require a more advanced educational system: this was the case during the Cold War. Or when the Frankish empire required all religious institutions to teach everybody secularly.

Money is a way to communicating power. Although it is not the only way: the law is the basic way to transmit power, and mandatory education is an obvious example.

Massimo said that “the whole system is corrupt”. A leading article in The Economist recently condemned the American university system, saying it was not worth it. It pointed out that employers care not so much about what students learn there, but about the fact they have been selected (to attend select college).

“American graduates score poorly in international numeracy and literacy rankings, and are slipping. In a recent study of academic achievement, 45% of American students made no gains in their first two years of university. Meanwhile, tuition fees have nearly doubled, in real terms, in 20 years. Student debt, at nearly $1.2 trillion, has surpassed credit-card debt and car loans.”

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647285-more-and-more-money-being-spent-higher-education-too-little-known-about-whether-it?

The tremendous propaganda in the USA about issues which profit plutocracy has been made effective by the lack of education of the population.

Education is not just instruction, it can be submission.

***

ORIGIN OF EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES:

European universities evolved from the Cathedral schools. The latter had been imposed in the Eight Century, by Frankish law, all over Europe. Professors were cleric.

This is why European universities have no police, to this day (they were cathedrals, initially).

However, by the late Twelfth Century, the faculty of art allowed some teachers to not be theologians (Buridan was an example).

The power of universities was enormous then. Abelard used his pulpit at the Paris Cathedral School to oppose the Second Crusade and Saint Bernard. (Abelard’s arguments lost, short term, but won, long term.)

When the University of Paris got its entire body out, it extended from one end of the capital to the other. A year long strike in 1200 CE forced the papacy to authorize the teaching of Aristotle.

By 1300 CE, supported by his English vassal, the king of France, cracked down on the Pope and his army, the Templars. Philippe IV Le Bel’s aides were commoners, highly educated youth without fortune or honorable pedigree.

American universities have a very different origin. Stanford, for example, was founded by a plutocrat who used Chinese workers (who had few rights), to build railways.

***

USA MODEL; PLUTO FUNDS EDUCATION, THUS RULES MINDS:

There is a conscious bias, top down, in the USA against the existence of the CO2 crisis, the reality of evolution, and for the existence of the USA as a “Christian nation”.

The New York Times just discovered it in “A Christian Nation? Since When?” that it is plutocrats in the 1930s who invented the USA as a Christian nation.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/perspective-islamophobia-is-not-racist/

The denialist system of thought in the USA is mostly fed by money. “Climate change” is an example: it is clear that augmenting the greenhouse gases from 280 ppm to 450 ppm (including CO2 going from 280 to 400 ppm), can only have an extremely damaging effect… Especially considering half of the created CO2 goes in the ocean to make carbonic acid… And that last time we had 400 ppm of CO2 sea level was around 30 to 40 meters higher.

There is really no need for “expertise”, in a subject like that, to perceive the danger. Now California is suffering a drought more severe than any time during at least 3,000 years. And it is directly caused by climate change. Restrictions have just started (and are grossly insufficient).

The economy is the management (nomy) of the environment (eco). It does not have to be about “money”: successful empires (Inca, USSR) worked without money, or partly without money (the army and public works in Republican Rome come to mind).

It is clear that, to manage the environment well, one needs knowledge.

However, it all depends upon what is meant by “environment”. If it is about the wealthiest, the USA is becoming increasingly hospitable. And having a dysfunctional educational system helps, as confrontational critiques, which require a lot of certainty, cannot arise.

The USA’s university system is dysfunctional, intellectually speaking, but it is not an accident. It is a system. Just as the GI Bill (which made higher education free for GIs), was also a system. That system went the other way. It was paid for by a 93% tax on high income.

The USA’s university system is perfectly functional if its function is the pursuit of happiness of plutocracy.

Patrice Ayme’

Summers Summits Summits of Hypocrisy

March 8, 2015

Some people all they want is power, and will do whatever it takes to get it. Larry Summers is the ultimate example of this. Summers version 2015 just found that the mood is changing, and condemns 100% Summers, version 1990s, when he was Secretary of the Treasury under that class act, Bill Clinton (from dirt poor to dirty rich).

Two immediate family members of Summers were Nobel Prizes in economy.

Summers was part of a clique of young PhDs in economics who studied how to get rich and influential at MIT and Harvard around 1979. Paul Krugman, one of them, lauds them all the time. I sent a scathing comment on the whole mood of economics as the golden calf. It did not get published.

FDR’s Powerful Family Crest: Who Plants, Preserves

FDR’s Powerful Family Crest: Who Plants, Preserves

FDR planted a mighty tree, the separation of money creation from financial conspiracy. Larry Summers uprooted it.

Here is my suggestion for Larry Summers’ Family Crest: Who Uproots, Destroys. Summers uprooted the financing of the real economy, and thus destroyed it. As corruption went up, innovation (true innovation, science based) went down.

Corruption is a barrier to innovation, warns Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, in Nature. Greater scrutiny of public spending is needed if science and technology are to fulfil their potential, she intones. However, there is more pernicious than that: when private spending and practice is deregulated by government.

After, deregulation of private practice is how, around 1620, slavery was made lawful in the future USA.

Another of the Harvard-MIT economist conspirators was Mario Draghi.

All these plotters literally knew each other, saw each other, talked to each other, learned form each other… How to please their masters. Mario Draghi got his PhD from MIT, in 1979. Later Draghi became vice chairman at the financial conspiracy outfit Goldman Sachs, and “trustee” at various USA plutocratic institutions of high repute (Brookings, Princeton, etc.).

Draghi is now in charge of giving money to giant private European banks. So they can become richer: then the money will trickle down to European pigeons, and they can thrive, eating the crumbs.

American plutocrats know and trust Draghi. Europeans don’t know anything about him, except they believe he is European (I know better: plutocrats belong to Hades, not the real world).

Larry Summers was put in charge of removing all regulations that this traitor to the plutocratic principle, or, more exactly, trickle down, Franklin Roosevelt, had instituted in 1933.

What had FDR done?

Basically banks create money. So they are agents of the government. Thus they ought not to intervene all over the economy, and, in particular, finance, without important limits to their powers.

Summers removed these limits.

The effect on High Finance was absolute power, thus absolute corruption.

The green light given to bankers to corrupt all of society had an effect on other mighty economic actors.

Those worthies felt a green light had also been given to them, implicitly: if the bankers could use their money creation capacity mandated by the government, to enrich themselves and their friends to infinity, why not the same for all?

Why could not fossil fuel plutocrats corrupt scientists and the media, and claim it was totally OK to augment CO2 in the atmosphere by

The democrats were in power in Congress starting in 2006: they did not stop Bush. The democrats were in absolute power just after Obama got elected: they pursued the program of rescue of the plutocracy, complete with tax cuts for the hyper rich.

Obama, to get elected, needed to mobilize those who do not usually vote, because they do not believe that whatever they do will change anything.

Nowadays so-called “democrats” in the USA are in a bind: to get their champion elected, they need the champion to mobilize those Obama mobilized, and who got very little in exchange.

Moreover, the plutocracy got entrenched in the meantime. To change this would require a revolution. Re-evolving.

Re-evolution is something the People may support, if it believed in it. To avoid it, it’s called “Populism” (sounds like Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Islamism, all pejorative notions).

Fast forward to the New York Times. A long ode to Summers called “Establishment Populism Rising.” by Thomas B. Edsall. Here is how it starts:

Larry Summers, who withdrew his candidacy for the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve under pressure from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in 2013, has emerged as the party’s dominant economic policy strategist. The former Treasury secretary’s evolving message has won over many of his former critics.

Summers’s ascendance is a reflection of the abandonment by much of the party establishment of neo-liberal thinking, premised on the belief that unregulated markets and global trade would produce growth beneficial to worker and C.E.O. alike.

Summers’s analysis of current economic conditions suggests that free market capitalism, as now structured, is producing major distortions. These distortions, in his view, have resulted in gains of $1 trillion annually to those at the top of the pyramid, and losses of $1 trillion every year to those in the bottom 80 percent.”

One has to pinch oneself. Summers has of course zero credibility. Trusting him on economics and social questions would be trusting an enemy. Summers put the entire planet on the wrong trajectory. He is part of a coterie mainly centralized on Harvard, which insisted on raping, pillaging, and letting Russia being devoured by plutocrats created ex-nihilo, because, for Harvard types, plutocracy is an absolute good, just as for Saint Louis Catholicism was an absolute good worth killing the world for.

The destruction of the Russian economy (more exactly a lowering of Price Purchase parity, within Russia, of at least 40%) was just one facet of their maelstrom of destruction these USA based public-private plutocrats visited on the world.

The result, in the case of Russia, is the rise of Putin, someone who advocates using nuclear weapons on Warsaw if his conventional attacks get in trouble. Why? Because, as the entire West propaganda and governments lauded, for more than twenty years (time flies), the Rubin-Goldman-Sachs-Summers-Clinton-Greenspan view of the world, Putin just got mad with rage. Rightly so.

But the damage is not confined to Putin. All over the world, from Xi to Assad, to all and any politicians in Brazil, Larry Summers and his ilk preached. They preached that corruption and plutocratization ought to have no limits, as long as the gullibility of We The People went along.

“Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.”

— President J.F. Kennedy.

The elite is fearing the hatred, which is growing. Even in the naturally rich USA. The rapacious elite wants to marshal the anger, to drive it to a safe place. Safe for itself to keep on enjoying Earth a little bit more, as its feudal domain. It is a race between knowledge and folly.

Patrice Ayme’

Rolled By Rawls

June 4, 2013

  It’s a grave thing when your leaders are turncoats. And worse when you don’t even feel that this is the case. Has John Rawls led the philosophy, and, even worse, the economy, and financial system, of the world, dramatically astray in a subtle way? So that we will end down worse than where we started? Is Faust lurking within Rawls?

  John Rawls, “arguably the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century“, is widely viewed as progressive. But I will show here that, down in his philosophical fondations, Rawls shares the same universe, the same building materials, with Ayn Rand, the notorious pseudo-Nietzschean business fascist. I will proceed to demonstrate this while demolishing the very core of Rawls, just as Luke Skywalker with the Death Star in “Return of the Jedi“.

Raw Rawls, "Left", Enlightening Human, Right

Raw Rawls, “Left”, Enlightening Human, Right

  In Ben Bernanke Endorses A 73 Percent Tax Rate“, Paul Krugman extols his past and present chair: “the big thing in Bernanke’s remarks was his discussion of the obligations of the successful, even within a supposedly meritocratic society:”

  I do, of course, agree with a 73% tax rate (and even higher). I also do agree with most of the practical political aims of Rawls (widely viewed as on the left…in the sense “left” has in the USA). The point I am going to make is otherwise subtle. I will show that Rawls and his followers are embracing a metaprinciple that contradicts goodness. Namely that everything is a deal. Sorry Rawls, your brain is perfused by markets, not goodness.

  Here is what some of the head of the central bank of the USA said, June 2, 2013, at Princeton:

  “We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumerate–these are the folks who reap the largest rewards. The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others.”

  And Krugman to add, by complimenting, while exposing, Ben Bernanke:

  “OK, this is, whether BB realizes it or not (he probably does) basically a Rawlsian view of the world, in which you think of life as a kind of lottery in which you draw a ticket that includes things like your genetic endowment as well as the wealth of your parents. And what you’re supposed to do, ethically, is support the economic and social system you would choose if you had to enter that lottery not knowing what ticket you were going to draw — if you were making political choices behind the “veil of ignorance”.

  It’s more than “basically” a Rawlsian view, it’s raw Rawls, rehashed. Rawls’ “lottery” is one his most famous ideas.

  Why is Rawls so famous? Here is Rawls in the raw, at the core of the most famous extract of his most famous book and system of ideas, “Justice As Fairness”

  “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain. For given the circumstances of the original position, the symmetry of everyone’s relations to each other, this initial situation is fair between individuals as moral persons, that is, as rational beings with their own ends and capable, I shall assume, of a sense of justice.

  Key concepts: justice, fair agreement, bargain… In other words: justice 1, business 2. Give that genius tenure at Harvard!

  I will discreetly slip on Rawls’ wonderfully circular logic: justice as fairness, and fairness as emanating between “moral persons… capable… of a sense of justice“. Justice is fair, fair is justice. Just as the crocodile rolls, to discombobulate and disintegrate the prey, so does Rawls. You have been rolled, people!

  What did Rawls do that was not done before? Why so famous on Wall Street? Rawls found a reasoning that Americans obsessed by business ethics (“making deals“) would think they have to find ethical to follow (as deals is what they do). By so doing John Rawls seduced deal makers, the plutocrats, and insured that he would be professor at Harvard for more than thirty years.

  In a further development of his basic drift, Rawls presented society as a lottery, and reflected on what ought to be the rules of that lottery. Those rules, he says, are what is fair, and to be called justice.

  Rawls presents the participation in society as a choice (it’s not; one does chose to be born), and then he presents the form that this participation should take as a business deal.

  So Rawls is saying that all members of society have decided to engage in a business deal. We are all business men! Apparently we started early, when we were six days old. Making deals. You will ask me: ‘How can a 6 days old baby engage in a business deal?’ Beats me: go ask Rawls, down in the abyss.

  Down the abyss? Down the ethics of plutocracy? Rawls and his followers implicitly accept the principle of profit, the principle of the deal, as the base of all ethics. Thus we are invited to make a deal with the devil, in the name of ethics, as if the devil cared.  It’s pure Faust. It’s self contradictory (as Rawls admits there is a “sense of justice“).

  Rawls, and his belief that markets, deals and bargains made by individuals, behind a veil of ignorance (so is ignorance good?), are the way to achieve justice is the flaw behind the thinking of the left leaning American intellectuals, and the democratic party. Reagan, or Thatcher, and their neoconservative followers, worldwide, shared the same convenient credulity and profitable blindness.

  This is all sheer madness:  Rawls is another case of a mental infection started in Harvard, a pandemic of the mind that spread worldwide. In the Rawlsian system of thought and emotion, making deals is what the universe is all about.

  How more wrong can one be? To justify redistribution of wealth, one just has to know what an exponential is, it has been done for at least 10,000 years, except when Lords succeeded to reign (and when they did, it was because redistribution failed and the exponential won!)

  The real reasons for justice have nothing to do with imagining society as a business deal. Justice, as given by evolution, is biological. Justice is not venal.

  Studies on (South American) marmosets showed that such animals had an acute sense of justice. To the point that, if justice gets trampled upon, they can revolt in anger against the human experimenter. Without ethics most advanced primates species could not even exist. Especially not baboons. How come what baboons know is the process of being forgotten in the USA (and its poodle, the EU)?

  Human goodness exists, independently of business deals. One does not make deals with a baby, one gives the baby love. Only the clueless, or the vicious, believe that bargains and lotteries define the core of the human condition. But, however abysmal, this is what we are confronting. Even on the so called left.

***

Patrice Ayme

Indebted To Lies Plutocracy Is

April 20, 2013

A vast scandal is unfolding in economics. Its repercussions are horrendous: in conjunction with what i already denounced in “Indebted To Lies” (February 12, 2013), all you read about debt is false. As Paul Krugman puts it cogently in “The Excel Depression“: Did an Excel coding error destroy the economies of the Western world?”

Krugman is way too nice. There was not just a coding “error”. The deliberate malfeasance I expose below is no error.

(Notice that Krugman seems to be oozing towards admitting that we have (an excel…lent?) depression not just a lesser one; soon he will have to call the unfolding disaster a Greater Depression, just as I do!)

Harvard: We Lie, Therefore We Thrive

Harvard: We Lie, Therefore We Thrive

Notice the understatement of the Wall Street Journal (“are not as clearly linked“), in their own caption above: there is little relation between growth and debt load. And this, even in the malevolently selected countries of the extremely influential R-R paper (to be trashed below).

Also notice the biased title of the WSJ, which contradicts the essence of what follows it: the WSJ staff knows readers have little time, and, at a glance, will extract from the graph (that they will most probably not carefully examine), that “debt is a burden“. Whereas the graph says the exact opposite: debt is little burden. But the WSJ staff knows what their masters want them to say: in with the austerity, out with the economy, and the People it supports. The WSj staff has to eat and pay rent. Of these little manipulations, little minds are made.

***

HARVARD CROOKS LONG GUIDED THE WORLD INTO THE ABYSS:

To destroy plutocracy, one needs to destroy first the Evil League that provides it with respectability.

A famously very connected Harvard graduate and plutocrat, Ernst Sedgwick Hanfstaengl, was one of the early supporters of Hitler. His grandfather had carried Lincoln’s coffin. The Sedgwick family is part of plutocratic central in the USA. To this day (naturally in various forms of acting).

A composer and pianist, “PutziSedgwick-Hanfstaengl wrote the songs the Nazis used, modifying his own Harvard songs. The scared and wounded Nazi leader took refuge at the home of this very wealthy American, after the failed putsch of Fall 1923. Hitler was in love with Hanfstaengl’s American wife. She prevented Hitler’s suicide, when Bavarian police came to arrest the Nazi “Guide“.

Hanfstaengl was connected by friendship to the Roosevelts, and many other influential plutocrats, themselves connected to everybody who mattered in the USA. Top Nazis came to believe, correctly, that the plutocratically controlled USA would never attack them (and so the Nazis had to declare war to the USA themselves when they found in Moscow that they would lose the war, anyway! When you have got to go, you may as well do so in a blaze of glory!)

This Harvard connection explains why the USA considered the French republic, rather than the Nazi dictatorship, its enemy after 1933. The result was World War Two, Auschwitz, Yalta, the pact with the Wahhabists, etc. As many gifts to those worthies supporting Harvard. Evil: the gift that keeps on giving to plutocrats.

Is the Ivy League resembling the Evil League, more than anything else?

***

HARVARD CROOKS STILL GUIDE THE WORLD TO OBLIVION:

I have long insisted that “plutocratic universities” are propaganda outfits for their masters. Harvard University is blatant that way, a cesspool of theoretical justifications for civilizational abuse. For all to see: one of its professors came with the ridiculous “Clash of Civilizations“, an astoundingly uninformed, but highly influential work, a sort of modern justification for “Mein Kampf“. It goes a long way to explain the support of American “neoconservatives” for Fundamentalist Wahhabism.

Larry Summers (Harvard’s president), insisted, as Clinton’s Treasury Sec., that the most valuable investment known to man would be the financial derivative. And the full power of the state was harnessed to make it so. Ever since the economy has become derivative, indeed (size real world economy: 50 trillions, not even a tenth of financial derivatives alone, 80% of it through fiscal havens).

Thanks to the Clintonians (or should I call them Goldmanians?), financiers have been taxed a maximum of 15% ever since.

I am happy to report another deleterious piece of mass mind control from Harvard, with huge consequences. In 2010, Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (R-R) released a paper, “Growth in a Time of Debt.” Their “main result is that… for countries with public debt over 90 percent of GDP … average (mean) growth rates are several percent lower.” The Harvard guys professed that countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 90 percent have a slightly negative average growth rate.

The work of the Harvard worthies was used, worldwide, as the main argument to engage austerity programs all over. Just when People had to be put to work, they were told they were furloughed. Never minds if people died from all the austerity (say by arriving at hospitals that had stopped providing care, from lack of funds, as happened in Portugal).

Never mind that the austerity was not applied to the hyper rich and banksters (now both richer than ever).

What else? The Harvard economists cheated. And it was deliberate, because they did so several times, and in different ways.

Indeed, it’s hard to believe that their programming “mistake” was really a mistake, because, independently of that, they also massaged the data in what is obvious academic malfeasance (for example equating 19 years of solid British growth, in spite of debt above 90%, with one year of New Zealand growth, and similar biased monstrosities).

Another tactic: they deliberately misinterpreted facts (when GIs were demobilized, an economic disruption due to this was misinterpreted, by the Harvard profs, as a problem caused by debt; showing they are ignorant, or vicious, or both). 

Second problem? It should have been obvious that the Harvard professors’ work was completely wrong (Paul Krugman wants to “Blame the Pundits Too“; I concur).

***

PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD SAYS: OBVIOUSLY WRONG IN ONE CASE IS ENOUGH

To prove a theory is wrong, it’s enough to have ONE spectacular counter-example. Obviously a lot of economies grew tremendously in spite of high debt loads in the past. It happened to the USA after World War Two. Same for most European economies.

This happened in particular during the “thirty glorious years” of unabated economic expansion. Then the ruling theory, all over the West, was that growth in infrastructure, knowledge (CERN, going to the Moon, etc.), social progress (retirement, mandatory vacations), education (GI Bill, free education, all the way to universities, even in California) had primacy over all other economic aims. Inflation and debt were put in the service of these goals.

Thus it was clear that the RR fact finding was actually fact denying.

A further step in proving an old system of thought is wrong is when a simpler, more plausible theory offers itself. It does not matter the details are not in. Not only do we have counter-examples to the debt-is-bad theory, but it’s easy to build a theory of why and when debt is good.

Debt, per se, is not a problem. As long as one can reimburse it. Thus the problem is what the debt is used for. Any debt that comes due, after a very profitable investment it enabled, allows to reimburse it, is obviously an economic positive.

So why the debt phobia? Why is Obama using debt phobia to throw Social Security below the exponential train?

Right now the debt phobia is just a Trojan Horse to divert the debate way from what the plutocrats do not want to talk about. Rising the taxes on those who have most of the money and power.

***

STOP FINANCING THE RICH, INVEST IN A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY FOR THE PEOPLE:

As debt became enormous in World War II, taxes on the wealthy, in the USA, were brought up to 94%. Truman lowered them down a bit, but then president Eisenhower, a republican, brought the top tax margin rate back up to 92.5%. Ike explained he did this to reimburse the debt. Meanwhile Ike launched and financed the Interstate Freeway System. The idea: to build all over the USA a system of autobahn (just like in Germany), free to the public, would improve the economy. That was proved correct a hundred times over.

Raising the tax on the most wealthy to 92.5% would have done wonder. Obama could have financed the construction of highly profitable 250 mph (400 km/h) high speed trains in several place where it would have been profitable to do so (for example the North East and California). Or simply to build power lines out of a few places where cheap sustainable is produced or producible. (In Spring, the North West USA produces potentially more electricity from hydro that it can use and export.)

The case of Europe is similar. Taxes there are higher than in the USA, but the land is poorer and smaller (the population density is  about four times that of the USA, with fewer resources). Thus public spending in Europe ought to be even higher. For example in the matter of energy. The switch to sustainable energy, as it is done today, is proving too costly under existing technology (this is very clear in Britain, where energy costs have doubled since 2006, and in Germany where they threaten to do the same soon).

So considerably more research on new energy should be made by Europe. Instead research and education budgets are coming short of what’s needed.

***

GREAT DEPRESSION? PLEASE DEFAULT OUT OF THE OLD STUFF, & BORROW FOR THE FUTURE:

European “conservative” leaders will whine they don’t have the money to sustain their socio-economy. Of course, those neofascists and their plutocratic employers have the money, for themselves. And as far as the states are concerned, to get money, it could not be simpler: borrow. Interest rates are at record lows.

Borrow until what? Until so much economic activity explodes that money is very much in demand, and interest rates perk up. The interest rates will follow the economy. It’s mechanical.

The Netherlands just recognized this, three days ago. Not a coincidence that the great debt paper of the Harvard crooks had just crashed and burned. The Netherlands changed policy on austerity, this week, breaking spectacularly with Germany.

The Low Countries decided to forgo the austerity drive. The center-right government decided to deliberately AUGMENT its deficit by 10%, above what the EMU bylaws require. Instead of bringing their deficit below 3% of GDP (as mandated by European Monetary Union rules), they will keep it at 3.3% by refusing to make some cuts.

On April 5, Portugal’s Constitutional Court said that plans to trim public employee wages and retiree pensions—while not touching the income of other groups—violated the constitutional principle of equality. It also overturned a planned tax on unemployment benefits.

Do you really want to make Europe richer, you the “conservatives” admirers of Wall Street, infeodated to international plutocracy? Crack down on the wealthy. Not just wealthy individuals, but wealthy corporations. In particular, Europe should stop financing the corporations of the USA, the core of the plutocratic system. I am not just talking about having them pay tax (this they don’t do, allowing them to kill and devour small businesses, throughout the West… Although the BRICS do not allow them to play this game!).

On the his last day as president, Hoover signed the “Buy American Act of 1933“. That said that the government of the USA would buy only American. In the service of free trade, it was mandatory that the European governments will keep on buying American. All is fair in exploitation and spoliation. (In case the Europeans could still sell something to the USA, president Reagan (Ray-Gun?) had a reinforcement passed in 1983, the imaginatively, and revealingly named “Buy America Act“.)

That “Buy American Act” outrage to free trade was instituted 80 years ago. Meanwhile American plutocracy has kept on preaching the opposite. The European leaders do not seem to have noticed. Why? Are they paid not to notice, just like Harvard economists Carmen were paid, to bear power into the further destruction of the democracies? Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff were paid, through monies, career, honors, and reputation to claim that one cures depression by starving the economy of money.

Same for their European colleagues: paid through monies, career, honors, and reputation to claim that one cures depression by starving the economy of money, and… not to notice the “Buy America(n)” Acts.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

Notes: The University of Massachusetts found a more honest version of the Rogoff-Reinhart’s paper would revise the average growth estimate for the highest-debt countries to 2.2%—or a percentage point lower than for countries with a debt-to-GDP ratio of between 60% and 90%.

The head of the German Central Bank used the Rogoff-Reinhart’s claim that countries with more than 90% debt/GDP had negative growth, this pack of lies, as recently as February 2013, to justify curing depression with the hunger strike of austerity.

P/S: A faithful commenter on this site, Dominique Deux, reminded me of  “the “internal error” at the IMF which completely underestimated the negative effects of austerity measures. The IMF has recognized the mistake but its recommendations, and more importantly the policies they supposedly inspire, never wavered. I safely predict this new instance of cooked up “data” will have the same lack of consequences. Dogma trumps reality.”

It’s not just dogma, it’s first impression authored with great authority that imprints the weak minded. weak minded by purpose, of course.

TEACHING NAZISM AT HARVARD

August 19, 2009

 

HITLER MAY BE DEAD, BUT PLUTOCRACY HAS TO RESUSCITATE HIS IDEAS: HERE COMES THE FERGUSON…

***

Abstract: The “historian” Niall Ferguson used his clout to try to discredit Obama’s economic stimulus. Some believe that Ferguson’s work is highly original. But it is enabled by Godwin rule: mention Hitler, and you have lost the argument, whatever it is. Holocaust deniers love that rule.

Thus a whole generation does not know much of Hitler’s pronouncements. Thus, it is not know that Hitler’s party ran on an electoral platform, made mostly of Harvard’s professor Niall Ferguson’s ideas. Never mind that Ferguson was not yet born: Harvard is apparently full of giants escaping human understanding. Or then has a high tolerance for plagiarism, as long as it is of the fascist kind.

Hitler was closely tied to Harvard, because he was an instrument of Anglo-Saxon plutocracy, and one of its centers is Harvard. The plutocracy has perdured, because so did its ideas, and Ferguson’s job is to make it so, by teaching them to the youth.

Such invented knowledge confuses common People totally, obscuring the plutocratic tracks. Hitler hid that he marched to war, hand in hand with his special American plutocratic friends. Instead he claimed to be attacked by the French, stabbed in the back by traitors, the rat like Jews, the Versailles treaty, and perfidious Albion.

Ferguson’s pose is not just a cover-up for Hitler, but, more fundamentally, a cover-up for the plutocracy that gave rise to Hitler and still rules.

***

PUTTING FASCISM UNDER A GOOD LIGHT, AS FERGUSON DOES, HELPS PLUTOCRACY:

How does the plutocracy procreate in the realm of ideas and emotions? By making the fascist and plutocratic atmosphere the best one known to elite youth. To do so is simple enough: promote those expounding the plutocratic body of "knowledge" by endowing them with the most prestigious university chairs and the power of mass media.

A case in point is Niall Ferguson, a young and famous professor at Harvard. He is famous because he is handsomely published by the best editors, besides enjoying Harvard’s clout and media presence.

The reputation of Ferguson is awesome. As "Freakonomics" has it: "When giants like Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson start to argue, they both sound compelling." Krugman, generously, reports about Ferguson that:"I’m told that some of his straight historical work is very good."

Well, not that I know of. Ferguson’s main body of ideas is outright dangerous on a civilizational scale. Ferguson’s ideas, none of them new, are of the utmost importance for the persistence of plutocratic rule. We heard them all, echoing back from the 1930s.

Ferguson’s most important ideas were exactly the ideas which Hitler embraced, as he headed for World War Two. Many of these ideas were not invented by Hitler either. I have traced one of them, in its earliest manifestation, to "Colonel" House meeting with the Kaiser, in May 1914.

***

THE TRUE CAUSES OF WORLD WAR ONE:

"Colonel" House was the closest adviser and the envoy of president Wilson of the USA (a guy of pacifist repute). House’s big idea was an attempt to create a wedge between Britain and France. Britain and France had, by far, the world’s two largest empires, whereas the USA and Germany suffered from very small ones.

At the time, a serious problem was looming, related to the frantic built -up of the Kriegsmarine. Because Germany had twice the GDP of Britain, Britain was in danger of losing her military supremacy at sea. Britain was export dependent, and would have died if Germany had blockaded her. So Britain was getting increasingly upset.

The other large democracy was the French republic. After losing during the war of 1870-1871 a huge portion of her territory, including crucial coal beds and some of its most heavily industrialized areas, France was fully cognizant of the imperial fascist German danger. That danger was extreme.

Imperial Germany was dominated by an oligarchy outrageous enough to the point of fascism. Her top leaders viewed with increasing alarm the entangled French and Russian economic build-up. Russia was democratizing, and France helped it with huge credit. The German generals believed the clock was ticking in their disfavor. They felt surrounded by a French and democratic coalition, with its three main actors: France, Russia, and Britain.

Plans originating with Bismarck and the Prussian General Staff called for the eradication of the French republic. So France had been condemned to pay "reparations" to the German empire that were supposed to break her economically. Never mind that the empire had been created in Prussian occupied Versailles, and that the war was on French soil, and had ravaged France (not Germany).

But France paid the "reparations" in five years. Bismarck was dismayed. That was not supposed to happen. Not only that, but France reinforced her overseas empire considerably, and the German imperialists realized too late that the empire was an immense source of republican strength, not just from commodities and markets, but also from manpower that, all over the world, came to identify with the republican ideals of the French revolution.

"Colonel" House proposed a deal to the Kaiser: stop the Kriegsmarine build-up, and, in exchange the USA, Britain, and Germany would rule the world, excluding the French. Clearly, the British Cabinet had not been consulted: it would have found the proposition delirious, as subsequent events showed. But the dim witted Prussian generals and the nutty Kaiser may have swallowed the bait of the ludicrous proposal, which it was not the USA to make, anyway.

In any case, the Archduke of Austria, a stern and determined partisan of peace, heir to Austro-Hungary, and a close friend to, and calming influence on, the Kaiser, was unfortunately assassinated. The fascist Prussian generals out maneuvered the Kaiser, who, being unstable, and, after all, the grandson of Queen Victoria, may have changed his mind at the last minute. They sent him away, as they prepared their infernal plot.

***

FASCIST SURPRISE ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY, 2 AUGUST 1914:

Roosevelt called Pearl Harbor a "day that will live in infamy". But Pearl Harbor was little relative to what fascist Imperial Germany’s top generals did on August 2, 1914.

The Prussian General Staff knew Britain had no army to speak of, and knew that the antique Russian army took weeks to mobilize. Their plan was to destroy France quickly, with the entire might of the imperial German army. Then they would carry by train the army across Germany, and take care of Russia. Germany’s army, although not as large as Russia’s, was equipped with the latest equipment. Russian best rifles fired 15 times a minutes, the same rate as French 75mm field guns (!).

But the German equipment was state of the art, and Germany had two hundred fifty-one divisions strong. Yes, 251 divisions.

To avoid the insurmountable French border fortifications, the plan called for the two million man German army to sweep down from the north, not the east. There was a slight problem: the triumphal Teutonic march was to go through neutral Belgium. Implicit in all of this was the thesis that Britain would stay out of it, and stay friendly, as promised by "Colonel" House, the grotesque dream that the Prussian generals wanted so much to believe in.

Never mind that Britain was a guarantor of the Belgian democracy. Never mind that France and Britain were the two largest full democracies, and had a deep affinity that way (the USA was on its way to give nearly everybody civil rights, although the so called "blacks" would have to wait for the 1960s). Never mind that England had been created by France, and that, after 485 years of "One Hundred Years war" civil war, France and Britain had been reuniting for a century in all ways, including going on joint military invasions of China and Russia (Crimea).

The most educated British leaders had arrived to the conclusion that the British intervention in the French revolution of 1789 had been a deep mistake, and that Britain should have stayed neutral, as France had in the British revolutions a century earlier (PM Lloyd George would assert this). France and Britain, for centuries had tried to progress towards democracy, and rights, and the betterment of mankind, more than any other important countries, and, clearly the Prussian generals were heading in the exactly opposite direction.

The Prussian generals understood none of this. Nor does Ferguson. When people are depraved enough, they do not understand what they do not have interest to understand.

In light of the preceding, the main thesis pushed by Ferguson, that Britain ought to have betrayed her sister democracy, France, is grotesque and deeply offensive to the spirit of democracy.

The day after Imperial fascist Germany attacked several democracies deliberately (becoming the first country to fire a shot in World War first), Earl Grey, the British foreign minister, delivered an excellent discourse to the Commons explaining why Britain had to get into the war. Earl Grey explained that civilization was at stake. People like Ferguson scoff at the notion. But the imperial German army committed mass murdering atrocities inside Belgium, days after assaulting it, after deliberate threats to do so (hence with premeditation). By comparison, no other European, American or British empire army involved in WWI has been (to my knowledge) accused of any atrocity during WWI.

Imperial German barbarity was not an accident, but a system. Imperial fascist Germany had engaged in a systematic holocaust in Namibia (led by Goering, father of Herman). White supremacists loved, and still secretly love fascist Germany just for this general inclination of being willing to free vast swathes of the planet for the white "Western" man of the Germanic variety.

It is not that Britain was anxious to go to war, foaming at the mouth. As the Secretary of State for War, Field-Marshal Kitchener, pointed out with relish: "I am proud to stand with such courageous men as my colleagues in the Cabinet. They have no Army and have declared war against the mightiest military nation in the world."

Nor were the French anxious to go to war. The French government was enjoying extensive summer vacations, and all important officials were far away. Only a minor government secretary was left in Paris, and he alone had to recall everybody, and start French mobilization to answer the imperial German march to war.

So WWI was the old struggle of fascism against democracy, the one of Greece against Persia, and the one of the "Europeans" against the Arab and Berber Muslim armies (starting after those religious fanatics invaded Spain in 711 CE, and France in 721 CE, and which is pursued, somewhat idiotically, in Afghanistan to this day). Ferguson does not understand this.

Just as with Pearl Harbor, fascism struck by surprise.

Ferguson is in good plutocratic company as far as playing dumb with WWI. Earl Russell, the philosopher, one of the top aristocrats in England, did not understand either that France and Britain were democracies, under attack, and fighting for democracy, against fascism. Russell was put in jail for 18 months, to shut down his treacherous propaganda (I will not honor it by calling it "pacifist").

As the war progressed, most democracies joined France and Britain (cynics will say that they were flying to the rescue of victory: as a result of a successful offensive in South Europe led by the French army, Germany was bound to starve for the winter of 1918/19).

Who has real reasons to be upset by the Franco-British rapprochement? Here is a hint: Churchill and the British Cabinet proposed an unification of France and Britain in 1940. De Gaulle accepted, and Churchill lent him the British equivalent of Air Force One to make the sale’s pitch. Who declined? The bastards who were busy setting up the non constitutional Vichy entity (that fascist entity was immediately recognized by the French hating Roosevelt administration).

OK, another hint. The few British divisions in existence played a role in the crucial (first) battle of the Marne. The Chief of the French army, Joffre, his center deeply penetrated by the German main body, had decided to counterattack from the side, Hannibal style, from the Paris fortress, appropriately held by the African army. That was all the reserve he had, and the move would leave Paris unprotected.

Fortunately, suddenly, the eight highly professional divisions of the British army showed up. Joffre used them as a flying reserve. British troops joined flank attacks by the Fifth and Sixth French armies. The counter attacks were highly successful: on September 9, 1914, just five weeks after their fierce assault on civilization, it looked as if the First and Second German armies would be totally destroyed. Tellingly, the British commander under the orders of Joffre, was called French.

This is how Germany lost WWI. This fact did not escape Hitler, an exceptionally courageous soldier, who saw all his comrades killed in fighting against the French, and was himself gazed (becoming hysterical in the process, the doctors said).

What Hitler took away from it, is that, had the few British divisions not been there, the French would have been less fierce, or would have run out of forces for the counter attack, or… In any case it was clear to Hitler, and many fascist white supremacists, that Britain, by helping France had chosen the wrong horse.

After the war, massive plots were engaged by many elements of the Anglo-American plutocracy, to profit from fascist German anger. Now, instead of being just angry and afraid of France, German fascists were irate about the resurrection of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and even Denmark recovering territory.

The Weimar republic, instead of admitting France was right, tried to pacify German fascists, thus undermining itself and the republican principles (Obama follows the same method in all things with his right wing opposition). Some German, American and English plutocrats promoted, financed and organized the Nazis. The relationship between France and the USA became terrible after Hitler came to power: France prepared for war, and the USA, thus, viewed France as a war monger. The USA took military and diplomatic measures against France: the influence of the plutocrats on the US government was great, and US plutocrats viewed Germany as a their latest frontier.

And all along the idea now adopted by our great Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson, was hanging around, in fascist circles: if only Britain had not helped France in WWI!

Hitler tried to make sure this would not happen again. He tried to build an alliance with Britain, and that worked until 1936. But then democrats in Britain understood the danger. The young pro-Nazi king was abdicated (he would betray horrendously in 1940: privy to the ultimate French military secrets, as inspector general of British forces, he would personally tell Hitler where to break through!).

All along, plutocrats reassured Hitler that Britain and the USA would not oppose him, and France would be left alone. By 1938, it looked like that at Munich, but by then Britain was rearming massively and secretly, building a superb Air Force. By 1939, Britain had given quiet insurances to France that she was on board, whatever France decided to do. France allied with Poland (Britain was in the fine print). In a last gambit, Hitler allied with Stalin. Sweating at the brow, but his dictatorial prestige on line, Hitler attacked Poland (thirsty for Polish oil, hungry for old "German" lands). France and Britain declared war.

***

SEARCH FOR WHOM THE CRIME PROFITED TO:

Once again, it was democracy against fascism. In a first phase, American plutocrats went into high gear, selling whatever to Hitler, sending him battle supplies as needed, managing for him what he needed, etc… In a second phase, American direct investments took a low profile, discreetly expanding with the Nazi Reich, under Nazi disguise. In a final phase, they remade their Nazi companies into American companies, having liberated (AKA conquered) the world. All together, it was an excellent operation for American plutocrats, but not so for anybody else, namely the rest of mankind.

The American People mightily profited, because the European empires were gone (with a final American shove), and the USA moved into the vacuum. The USA moved in, with the grossest methods, and they worked, because there was no alternative. Uncomprehending, for example, the USA manipulated Muslim extremism, believing it could always outsmart the religious primitives and their allies (the French and Brits had known better). Manipulating Muslim fanatics worked for the generation of Ibn Saud, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Shah, and the dictator Zia. But it is not working with the next, smarter generation, that of bin Laden, Khamenei, and the ISI. (Trying that old trick in Afghanistan will not work either.)

Now, of course the interpretation of history I sketched above is mine, it is not in history books. But it will gain in acceptance, because it is correct, and it seems clear that many influential characters have figured it out all by themselves. For example, some of Muslim terrorists seems to have joined fanatical Islam to use it as a weapon, as the USA had done before. But back to Ferguson.

***

NO NAPOLEON, NO HITLER?

Ferguson is a historian in the sense that Hitler was a historian too. "Mein Kampf" starts with a recall and reinterpretation of history, with the French as very bad guys, executing German freedom fighters. Hitler’s facts were not wrong. What was wrong is the weight he gives to those facts. It is true that the dictator Napoleon did not thread lightly in Germany. But it is also true that Napoleon contributed enormously to the construction of imperial Germany: he may have been the most important factor.

Napoleon united Germany, and created an imperial fervor (so, in a sense, it is Napoleon who created the modern Reichs!). Running out of Frenchmen to die on battlefields, Napoleon filled up his Grand Army with enthusiastic German and Poles, to attack Russia. The Nazis were obsessed by what happened next, namely that Napoleon lost, although he had won. The Nazis were determined to rise to the challenge, and do better in the next try. Ironically, they fell to exactly the same or similar factors to those which had befell their mentor Napoleon (although they analyzed them carefully, they were not careful enough, and the same bad luck with an extreme winter struck them too).

***

ON THE HISTORICAL WORK OF HITLER AND HIS PARROT FROM HARVARD:

Adolf Hitler was an idiosyncratic, but shallow thinker. He had many theses about World War One. No doubt that Harvard students know them well. Most of them are repeated verbatim in Ferguson’s "Pity of War", and his other works. Because few scholars know Hitler’s ideas, Ferguson sounds original. But, in truth, Ferguson plagiarizes Hitler most of the way including in the most absurd details (such as imperial Germany being intrinsically weak, peace loving, and democratic).

Hitler and Ferguson claim that Germany waged a preventive war in 1914.

[[Counterfactual: nobody was attacking Germany, nor planned to, or was capable of doing so; instead Germany pushed Austro-Hungary to go mad about the Sarajevo assassination; days after millions of German soldiers were already pouring into other countries, killing and ravaging, Austro-Hungary had still not attacked anybody, in spite of a huge pressure to do so from the Prussian generals.]]

Hitler and Ferguson claim that irresponsible British diplomacy tricked Germany into war, with a bait and switch.

[[How do you trick imperial Germany to attack the world for no apparent reason??]]

Hitler and Ferguson, following B. Russell, accused London of unnecessarily allowing a regional war in Europe to escalate into a world war.

[[This is beyond grotesque, because after attacking Russia, France and Belgium, while forcing Austro-Hungary to attack Serbia, the war was already all around the planet, as the French and German empire sprawled all around. Moreover, due to its deep French origins, in the most important ways, and what happened before, and the fundamental principle of democracy, Britain was never going to let France be destroyed by a foreign power. Russell did not understand this, because he was a top plutocrat at heart; later, when he was impoverished, he understood worthy causes much better.] ]

Hitler, the Nazis and Ferguson love to claim that the British maintained an ambiguous attitude to the question of whether Britain would enter the world wars by the side of France or not, and thus confused Berlin over just what was the British attitude towards the question of intervention in the wars.

[[Ferguson makes the argument in particular for WWI; this is counterfactual: one week before German troops crossed the borders, when the Prussian General Staff had given the final orders, absolutely nobody suspected, in France or Britain, that war was eminent; Britain was devoured by the Irish problem, and the entire French government was, literally, at sea. So nobody could have been ambiguous: nobody expected the top Prussian generals to be planning a worldwide attack. Nobody was talking world war, except the plotters of the Prussian General staff, and they were doing so secretly: attacking France by surprise was the most important part of their world domination plan. The “Entente Cordiale” between France and Britain was more than an alliance, it was obviously a process of reunification. By the way, it is now stronger than ever. British subjects are now regularly elected to French government jobs.]]

Ferguson denies that the origins of the Third German Reich can be traced to the Second German Reich.

[[ Why does Ferguson think Hitler called it the "Third" Reich, then? many of Hitler’s closest collaborators and street fighters were prominent Second Reich personalities. For example, during the Hitler’s “Beer Putsch”, troops fired on the Nazis. Ludendorff, second in command of the Prussian WWI army, and the most important general, kept on marching as the Nazis who had not been killed fled.]]

Instead Ferguson embraced Hitler’s thesis that the will to invasion of Nazism can only be traced back to the First World War and its aftermath.

[[This the famous Nazi propaganda that Germany was stolen and mauled at the Paris 1919 conference, and lost territory which was properly German; there are some elements of truth in it, but small truths can hide a much bigger lie. And this is the case here: the "aftermath" of WWI liberated the nation of Poland. According to Hitler and Ferguson, that was a crime. Go ask the Poles.]]

Hitler and Ferguson claim that Germany was peace loving before 1914, and Ferguson claims that Germany was the most anti militarist country.

[[Hitler used that argument constantly during his march towards WWII, and generalized generously to himself. According to himself, Hitler was the most benevolent person; amazingly, his entourage believed this, and the USA, while boycotting France, which was Hitler’s enemy, kept on feeding the Nazis with all sorts of direct investments and diplomatic support. The argument on the face of it is most grotesque; Germany had the world’s most powerful army in 1914 and 1939; with its 251 divisions, it may have been more than 100 times more powerful than the US Army. Imperial Germany was a war machine.]]

Ferguson, bizarrely, claims that Britain was driven into alliances with France and Russia as a form of appeasement due to the strength of those nations, and an Anglo-German alliance failed to materialize due to German weakness.

[[The relationship of Britain with France was an increasing form of unity, there was no need for "appeasement": France and Britain were in love; the relationship of Britain with Russia was excellent, a smaller form of the French massive investment in democratizing Russia. Economically, militarily, industrially, Germany was the world’s strongest nation, occupying half of Poland, a most important part of France; Germany’s only weakness was the fascist nature of its regime, which created an increasing internal anger, of the average German against the oligarchy on top. Distracting from that anger was an obsession of the oligarchs. starting a good war was a good distraction; moreover, it was a necessity, according to the top Prussian generals, who recognized that the Russian and French empires collaborating in democracy, would bury fascist Germany; instead of deducing they ought to have democratize Germany, they decided to gamble. Why? Because they were deeply tied to the Prussian aristocracy (they were the Prussian aristocracy), and they did not trust what they viewed as the German rabble…]]

Ferguson, the one who compares Obama to a lucky black cat, claims that the British fears of Germany were due to irrational anti-German prejudices.

[[As I said, the Brits worried about Ireland, the British newspapers, a week before Germany went berserk, were full of Ireland, and neglected Germany completely.]]

The rest of Ferguson ideas are so idiotic, I am not even going to bother with them. They closely follow some of Hitler’s most demented myths, and Russell’s lunacy that, had Germany crushed France in September 1914, the European Union would have been founded early.

This amazingly philosophically, civilizationally and historically naive stance neglects notions such as plutocracy, fascism, racism, brutality and extermination. Although Ferguson claims that the British were killing routinely German POWs (an invention), he forgot the systematic killing of Belgian civilians in some areas where the imperial German army was passing through. Auschwitz would be no accident: the German fascists trained in Belgium. If you can exterminate innocent Belgian civilians, doing the same to the French, the Russians, the Slavs, the Poles, the Jews, etc… is as easy as pie.

That the Imperial Second German Reich committed a war of aggression in 1914 is totally self obvious, and strongly promoted by German historians, such as Fritz Fischer; besides the document establishing the military plot was found in a cellar.

But Ferguson is a so called "counterfactual" so called "historian": he makes up entire world of facts, histories that never happened, and reasons from there. Harvard should be ashamed of itself. What can be taught there is pure non sense, not history.

***

RECAPITULATION: MOST OF THE IDEAS OF FERGUSON CAN BE TRACED TO HITLER.

Such ideas have their use. They were standard main Nazi propaganda. They allowed the Nazis to be elected, and allowed them to pose Germany as an innocent victim they were set to defend.

OK, so it is clear why Hitler invented Ferguson’s body of work. But what is Ferguson’s motivation? Well, one has to go back to the fact that Hitler was a manipulated manipulator.

It did not dawn clearly onto Hitler, that the generous American plutocrats that helped him so much, could have their own subconscious agenda. After all, a treacherous slave owner such as Jefferson, not satisfied with sleeping with a totally underage slave who was a very close relative, and having children with her, did much more than that. Jefferson lied to his under age mistress, who was his wife’s half sister. She and her brother wanted to stay free in France, where slavery was unlawful. Jefferson told them he would set them free, when back in the USA. He gave her many children, but not freedom.

This pitiful jerk wrote lofty discourses, probably copied from the British and French master thinkers, while re-enslaving Sally. However, he is viewed by many Americans as America’s top thinker (President Kennedy boasted that Jefferson was more clever than 40 Nobel Prizes put together). Top liar, cheat, pedophile, treacherous, morally disgusting to a point that would have disgusted an old Roman : meet America’s best mind. The American soul is complex and tortured.

In the end, as France and Britain went to all out war against Hitler, Hitler, unable to subdue Britain in the instant, had to attack the USSR, to avoid war on two fronts (somewhat paradoxical, but the fascists were not too bright; this is the exact reason that Hitler gave to the assembly of all the top German generals; Herren, we have no choice…). Then the stupid Japanese generals attacked the USA (which intended to get in the war in 1943, at the earliest, to come to the rescue of whoever was going to win). That freed 250,000 crack Siberian troops from the far east, which Stalin quickly brought to bear in the battle of Moscow, onto the frozen solid Nazis.

At that point the American plutocrats realized that Hitler was the wrong horse, and they changed tactics. Down with Hitler, up with the liberation of half of Europe with American capital. The other half, they gave to Stalin to chew on (not so much to pacify him, than to weaken Europe)

By insisting that bad British blunders created the 1914-1945 war, Ferguson achieves the following:

a) Fascism is innocent, actually there is no such thing as fascism.

b) Oligarchy is innocent, there is no such a thing as oligarchy.

c) Racism and lethal racial hatred was never practiced by enraged fascists, the Shoah is a mystery.

d) Britain and France may have been democracies, but democracy is not an important notion. Actually, neither France nor democracy are observable concepts.

e) Nazism is deeply innocent. Never mind that it was all highly predictable: Friedrich Nietzsche had warned, around 1880, that the German racist nationalist fascist madness was going to soon ravage Europe with abominable wars, during the following century. Exactly what happened.

That somebody as Ferguson is allowed to teach the young in the most prestigious places is testimony to the power of plutocracy, and the fact that it is racist and fascist at heart.

So, let me repeat: it is not France and Britain, the two and only very large democracies in Europe, which created the terrible war of 1914-1945. France (with Belgium, Luxembourg, Russia) was attacked. Everybody knew that Britain and France had been in the process of getting reunited and operating as a unit for a century, and had an explicit alliance ("Entente Cordiale"), that led them to joint military operations (invasions of China and Russia, among others).

What created that world war was the fascist, racist spirit that penetrated imperial fascist Germany.

The failure of the intervening Weimar republic was partly due to the fact that it conceded all the main points to the fascist opposition, preferring to accuse France and create gigantic inflation, rather than standing on principle in the internal German debate. (A bit similar to Barack Obama conceding to Big Pharma and eschewing the public health plan before even starting negotiations on health care.)

Ferguson says that civilization would have been improved by accepting that fascist, racist, mass murdering spirit. It is a misunderstanding about what civilization is. Civilization is about democracy, not oligarchy. But then, Ferguson is an oligarchic product (elite private school, etc.), and therein his bread and butter. He does what he is paid for.

***

Patrice Ayme

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

***

Notes: COULD THE FRENCH HAVE WON WITHOUT THE BRITS?

Technically, perhaps. After the French counteroffensive of the Marnes, when the First and Second German armies were barely saved form encirclement and destruction, Moltke, the head of the German command, coming out of a depression, is said to have reported to the Kaiser: “Your Majesty, we have lost the war.”

To give an idea of the scale of the French effort versus the British one, during this particular battle, the British lost 1,700 soldiers killed, whereas the French had 80,000 soldiers killed, 47 times more. The Germans had 220,000 casualties.

***

 

PART OF THE ENTANGLEMENT BETWEEN FRANCE AND BRITAIN:

Many people of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion, when they are not educated enough, do not realize that France and Britain were long part of the same polity (and are back into this state). So a bit of background:

Francia and Britannia were long important parts of the Roman empire, and were united that way.

For centuries, Britannia was a major, and rich province of the Roman empire. Then, because the plutocrats did not want to pay taxes anymore (I was going to speak of Goldman Sachs again, and stopped just in time), there was not enough army in crucial parts of the Roman empire, and the legions in Britannia were recalled.

Seeing that Britannia was defenseless, the north western Germans, the Angles, the Saxons and Frisians, never successfully defeated by Rome, attacked that juicy target.

The Britons organized a desperate defense, but were defeated. However, the empire of the Franks was sprawling over Western Europe , representing a new style of Roman power. The British army fled to Armorica, in such great numbers that the later became known as "Bretagne".

The counter attack occurred in two steps: Charlemagne, born two centuries later, conquered Northern Germany, christianized and domesticated Angles, Saxons and Frisians (Christianity is a massive weapon that the Franks used with relish against pagans).

Another 270 years later, a French army led by the Duke of Normandy counter-invaded Britain, and reestablished Roman rule (the French king, king of the Franks, suzerain to William, being "(Roman) emperor in his own kingdom"). In any case modern England was thus founded by the Franks: slaves were freed, and, to ingratiate themselves to the population, while stealing the properties of the noble Anglo-Saxon lords, the French introduced a litany of democratic reforms.

The 485 year war (the so called "100 year war") started as a civil war between Paris and London, French against French, Isabelle de France (queen of England) against rotten lawyers in Paris. It was a civil war between two French houses located near each other, Anjou and Normandy.

But some have never graduated from the supposed Franco-British enmity. Never mind that an English king as Richard the Lion Hearted, was born, raised, lived and died in France (some say he spent only 18 months in England, in his entire life). In truth, France and Britain are getting reunited. Whereas the invasions of Crimea and China, were more of a courtship ritual, their common front in WWI and WWII were part of a genuine unification, something traceable not just to Rome, but to the Celts even earlier.