Posts Tagged ‘Reality’

WANT HUMAN? FREE TRUTH! Instead, San Francisco Promotes Lying, While Hating History, Reality

June 30, 2019

GAFA AGE SAN FRANCISCO IS READY TO SPEND HUGELY TO DESTROY US HISTORY!  

Teaching US Children the USA Was Wonderful In The Past, Knew Neither Slavery, Nor Genocide, and big bad imperialistic white men: Curiously, and infuriatingly, this has become a (pseudo) progressive agenda. Or when false and fake progressives reveal their true nature.

***

The San Francisco school board unanimously decided to spend at least $600,000 of taxpayer money not just to shroud a historic work of art but to DESTROY it. Destruction of historical art is paramount for San Francisco leaders, so as to deny, and definitively erase, the reality of what happened in the USA: slavery and genocide. According to the SF School Board, US high school students should never be exposed to such notions.

In other words, San Francisco wants to succeed where the Nazis failed: claim there was never any holocaust, no slavery. Especially not in the US. Nothing to see, nothing to learn, for ever and ever, during the great San Francisco 1,000 Year Uber Reich. 

***

The Terror Of Politically Correct Self-Contradicting Imbeciles:

One of the commissioners, Faauuga Moliga, said that his chief concern was that “kids are mentally and emotionally feeling safe at their schools.” Thus he wanted “the murals to be painted down.” Mark Sanchez, the school board’s vice president, later told the New York Times that simply concealing the murals wasn’t an option because it would “allow for the possibility of them being uncovered in the future.Destroying them was worth it regardless of the cost, he argued at the hearing, saying, “This is reparations.”

So, according to this foolish reasoning, the way to “repair” what happened in Auschwitz and several thousands other Nazi extermination camps, is to erase all memory, and any traces of it. Washington and Hitler would become great men of history, who never engaged in racism, slavery and holocausts.

Those pseudo-”progressive” people as on this school board, are truly so stupid that they are becoming insane. 

Why insane? Because they want progress, but then they claim the past was perfect. So why to progress? From a perfect past? And since when can we progress from lies alone?

In a typical posture of his, Washington, as depicted in the mural San Francisco would pay any price to destroy, orders to proceed with “Manifest Destiny”, genocide, slavery, all the blood and injustice which made the US as it is. No good US citizen should ever know that real factual truth about the Founding Fathers, say the Snow Flakes. And that the USA was established through the most successful genocidal holocaust in the history of humanity. At least this is what the school board of San Francisco believe. Hitler would have gone to their feet and embrace them.

New York Times: 

“These and other explanations from the board’s members reflected the logic of the Reflection and Action Working Group, a committee of activists, students, artists and others put together last year by the district. Arnautoff’s work, the group concluded in February, “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” The art does not reflect “social justice,” the group said, and it “is not student-centered if it’s focused on the legacy of artists, rather than the experience of the students.

And yet many of the school’s actual students seemed to disagree. Of 49 freshmen asked to write about the murals, according to The Times, only four supported their removal. John M. Strain, an English teacher, told The Times’s Carol Pogash that his students “feel bad about offending people but they almost universally don’t think the answer is to erase it.”

Which makes one wonder who these bureaucrats actually seek to protect. Is it the students? Or could it also be their reputations, given that those in favor of preserving the murals are being smeared as racists?”

The work was made by a famous Communist artists, and it is 80 years old (that’s antique by California standards). The short of it is that the San Francisco Bay Area, long at the forefront of thinking, is now wrecked by the mentality of avid greedsters, who know only one thing that is greater than greed, and this is to cover-up what they are really doing. They want to erase any suspicion that they are what they truly are. So they scream they are anti-racist, or, as Google used to, order us “not to be evil”. This all started with Reaganism [1]

In this mural, African origin slaves can be observed. Female black ladies slaves are working the cotton fields in the background. So it was. The WPA paid for the work and the artist had been taught by the great Mexican master of social consciousness rising throughs murals, Diego Rivera. The WPA was the Work Progress Administration, crucial part of the New Deal, full of socialists, leftists and outright communists.

The Murals of Washington High were detested by the McCarthyists, but there was never any talk of destroying them. That was inconceivable. One didn’t destroy art, even in Nixon-McCarthy witch hunt USA.

New York Times: “By now stories of progressive Puritanism (or perhaps the better word is Philistinism) are so commonplace — snowflakes seek safe space! — that it can feel tedious to track the details of the latest outrage. But this case is so absurd that it’s worth reviewing the specifics.

Victor Arnautoff, the Russian immigrant who made the paintings in question, was perhaps the most important muralist in the Bay Area during the Depression. Thanks to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration, he had the opportunity to make some enduring public artworks. Among them is “City Life” in Coit Tower, in which the artist painted himself standing in front of a newspaper rack conspicuously missing the mainstream San Francisco Chronicle and packed with publications like The Daily Worker.

Arnautoff, who had assisted Diego Rivera in Mexico, was a committed Communist. “‘Art for art’s sake’ or art as perfume have never appealed to me,” he said in 1935. “The artist is a critic of society.”

This is why his freshly banned work, “Life of Washington,” does not show the clichéd image of our first president kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge. Instead, the 13-panel, 1,600-square-foot mural, which was painted in 1936 in the just-built George Washington High School, depicts his slaves picking cotton in the fields of Mount Vernon and a group of colonizers walking past the corpse of a Native American.

“At the time, high school history classes typically ignored the incongruity that Washington and others among the nation’s founders subscribed to the declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ and yet owned other human beings as chattel,” Robert W. Cherny writes in “Victor Arnautoff and the Politics of Art.”

***

Fighting the Red Coats, Burning Tea And Currency… More Washington High Murals

Washington was heir of a prominent military English American family. He owned hundreds of slaves. Urged by his friend and savior Lafayette to free them, Washington used weasel words, in correspondence with him, for years, to shirk his responsibility. New York Times:

“In other words, Arnautoff’s purpose was to unsettle the viewer, to provoke young people into looking at American history from a different, darker perspective. Over the past months, art historians, New Deal scholars and even a group called the Congress of Russian Americans have tried to make exactly that point.

“This is a radical and critical work of art,” the school’s alumni association argued. “There are many New Deal murals depicting the founding of our country; very few even acknowledge slavery or the Native genocide. The Arnautoff murals should be preserved for their artistic, historical and educational value. Whitewashing them will simply result in another ‘whitewash’ of the full truth about American history.”

Before any mental creation comes truth. Truth is established from real facts, not fake news, and big lies. Yesterday’s facts rule today’s horrors. If one wants to eradicate the latter, one has to understand the former.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/wrong-history-wrong-philosophy-nazi-lies-still-ruling-in-2015/

It is a fact that the North American English colony was founded, and prospered, thanks to genocide and slavery. Slavery was initially that of the whites (indentured servants), but, after a few years slavery became that of  Native Americans, and then imported Africans. Slavery permitted industrial culture of tobacco which made the English Colony highly profitable. Genocide was encouraged by New England cities which paid for Native scalps. Land was gained, one scalp at a time.    

Those brutal, homicidal social structures were transmitted to the USA, which pursued slavery and genocide on an even greater scale. That’s somewhat known… But other facts have been forgotten: the argument has been made that the true motivation of the American War of Independence was not the scandal of taxation without representation, but the fact that British authorities prevented European colonists to invade Native American lands (such as the Ohio Valley where Colonel Washington had important investments). Surely partisans of the established order will not entertain such a possibility.   

Are the facts of English American colonization, and of the USA for much of its history terrible? Yes. But the only thing more terrible than terrible history is to deliberately deny it ever happened. Happened. Indeed, the USA was born in extreme violence and that explains why, to this day, for example in health care or guns, or extreme inequality, extreme violence is felt to be the normal order of things.

In Nazi Germany, the Holocaust of the Jews was rendered possible only because the (Nazi) authorities succeeded to hide the truth enough from most of the German population that plausible denial could be brandished. The will to hide the truth is as inhuman as it gets: indeed, it defeats the essence of human beings, who are truth machines (Eat enough mice, and truth will come out)

Truth can be, often is, inhuman, it’s most human to uncover it… And then one needs to explain it, prior to re-engineer the reality that truth was depicting into something more humane. There is nothing more important to teach to children… through countless examples. 

Instead, nowadays, a mood has arisen that truth should be hidden, guided by the will to total comfort all the time: hedonism gone mad, not just lazy. This deplorable mentality is what is needed to keep on going with the mass extinction of the biosphere, doing nothing about it.

That mood festers particularly in the San Francisco Bay, a land of contradiction. How come so many contradictions? Think of it: to commit a crime, it’s generally easier, or even necessary, to hide it, so one needs a cover-up. The cover-up is best, when it completely hides reality. So crimes and cover-ups denying them tend to cohabit. And the more, and deeper the crimes, the more outrageous and extensive the cover-ups. 

A lot of the business model in high tech applications has consisted in running ahead of the law, with the complicity of bought off politicians (such as found in the Obama administration [2]).

***

It All Happened Before: Rome Also Collapsed in an hypocrisy called Christianism so immense, and so insane, that all of desired reality came to be known as the “Apocalypse”: 

Covering up reality with its opposite fosters insanity, because the appearances are the opposite of reality, and then people have to engage in ideologies enabling this schizophrenia. See Brexit [3]. This is exactly why Roman Catholic Orthodoxy (Christianism) became the state religion of the collapsing Roman empire, where the truth was that a tiny .1% minority, the plutocracy, in combination with the military dictatorship, was exploiting nearly all the GDP, while the rest of the population was living in ever more horrendous conditions… 

To deny that reality, Christianism said it was all for the best, as the collapse of civilization would bring the apocalypse, and then the Messiah would return. And only then (the same schema holds in Islam).

Real progressives assess reality better than those stuck in the past. To fail to discern between the depiction of a thing and the endorsement of a thing one learns to do when one is a small child. To look at the painting above and to conclude that it “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” is apparently an example of how folly brings infamy. But the motivation below this may be even worse. There may be a method to the folly: greed once again…

The San Francisco Bay Area is increasingly dominated by the ideology of pleasing the wealthiest men in the world. The first thing those plutocrats want, is that we take leave from reality and our common senses. That plutocratically fostered insanity starts with saying art is not art, and history didn’t happen, because it shouldn’t have happened.

The rest of the world is forewarned: the world’s center of high tech is becoming mad… Yes, remember the fish rots by the head (same happened to France, not so much in 1940, rather than after the Second World War, during so-called “decolonization and “French Theory”, as I have explained extensively). 

The assault against reality was planned by the powers that be, and instigated by their sycophants masquerading as “antifa” or “progressives”, or “liberals”, “snow flakes”, etc. Verily, they are just obnoxious pigeons obsessed by crumbs, ready to feel and think anything to get some more… of whatever they believe they desperately need. 

Want human? Free truth!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] In the 1980s, top Democrats came to collaborate with Reagan (except for Trump, who fought Reagan to death). It was all a huge and gigantic lie. David Stockman, Reagan budget director, explained that “trickle down”, Reagan economic program passed by O’Neil and other Democrats, the policy of advantaging the wealthiest was all hidden below a big lie: 

“It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

— David Stockman, The Atlantic…

Thereafter, all the way to the end of Obama’s second term, Reagan was the big lie which kept on giving… to the plutocrats, and an increasing unequal society.  It’s no coincidence that Trump, who opposed Reagan, came up and screamed to all they didn’t know what reality was. Notice I am not embracing Trump here. Simply pointing out that Alternative facts and Alternative Reality, didn’t wait Ms. Conway to rule contemporary politics.

And here is the crux: As that big lie, that the Reagan policies would help the Commons, whereas in truth, they were designed to foster plutocracy, worked basically four decades, all of society, even the rabid low lives opposed to it, learned to lie…

***

[2] Some have accused me to have Obama Derangement Syndrome (I invented the TDS diagnostic, so that was amusing). However, I observed with glee, that, in the last few weeks, a bipartisan and Democratic Congress-Trump White House effort has been launched against the top tech monopolies that Obama took his orders from, and which are now the world’s most powerful companies… and most stealing companies…

***

[3] Brexit claims to want to Make England Great Again, but all the MEGA it will bring will be British implosion (and that’s bad for the UNSC!) So it self-contradicts: the way to keep the UK strong is to make it the spine of Western Europe, with nuclear armed France….

 

Happy In the Sky With New Logics: Einstein’s Error II

August 6, 2016

Einstein assumed reality was localized and definite in one of his famous 1905 papers, and physics never recovered from that ridiculous, out-of-the-blue, wanton, gratuitous error. (The present essay complements the preceding one found in the link). 

At the origin of Quantum Mechanics is Max Planck’s train of thought. Max demonstrated that supposing that electromagnetic energy was EMITTED as packets of energy hf explained the two obvious problems of physics; h is a constant (since then named after Planck), f is the frequency of the light.

Then came, five years later, Einstein. He explained the photoelectric effect’s mysterious features by reciprocating Planck’s picture: light’s energy was RECEIVED as packets of energy hf. Fine.   

However, so doing Einstein claimed that light, LIGHT IN TRANSIT, was made of “LICHT QUANTEN” (quanta of light), which he described as localized. He had absolutely no proof of that. Centuries of observation stood against it. And the photoelectric effect did not necessitate this grainy feature in flight, so did not justify it.  

Thus Einstein introduced the assumption that the ultimate description of nature was that of grains of mass-energy. That was, in a way, nothing new, but the old hypothesis of the Ancient Greeks, the atomic theory. So one could call this the Greco-Einstein hypothesis. The following experiment, conducted in 1921, demonstrated Einstein was wrong. Thus the perpetrator Walther Gerlach, did not get the Nobel, and the Nobel Committee never mentioned the importance of the experiment. Arguably, Gerlach’s experiment was more important than any work of Einstein, thus deserved punishment The Jewish Stern, an assistant of Einstein, got the Nobel alone in 1944, when Sweden was anxious to make friends with the winning “United Nations”: 

Two Points. The Classical Prediction Is A Vertical Smear. It Is Also Einstein’s Prediction. And Incomprehensible In Einstein’s View Of The World.

Two Points. The Classical Prediction Is A Vertical Smear. It Is Also Einstein’s Prediction. And That Smear Is Incomprehensible In Einstein’s View Of The World.

Yet, Einstein’s advocacy of nature as made of grains was obviously wrong: since the seventeenth century, it was known that there were wave effects ruling matter (diffraction, refraction, Newton’s rings). That was so true, Huyghens proposed light was made of waves. Around 1800 CE Young and Ampere proposed proofs of wave nature (2 slit experiment and Poisson’s dot). The final proof of the wave theory was Maxwell’s completion and synthesis of electromagnetism which showed light was an electromagnetic wave (travelling at always the same speed, c).

Einstein’s hypothesis of light as made of grain is fundamentally incompatible with the wave theory. The wave theory was invented precisely to explain DELOCALIZATION. A grain’s definition is the exact opposite.

There is worse.

Spin was discovered as an experimental fact in the 1920s. Interestingly it had been discovered mathematically by the French Alpine mathematician Elie Cartan before World War One, and stumbled upon by Dirac’s invention of the eponymous equation.  

The simplest case is the spin of an electron. What is it? When an electron is put in a magnetic field M, it deviates either along the direction of M (call it M!) or the opposite direction (-M). This sounds innocuous enough, until one realizes that it is the OBSERVER who selects the direction “M” of M. Also there are two angles of deviation only. (The Gerlach experiment was realized with silver (Ag) atoms, but the deviation was caused by a single electron therein.)

Einstein would have us believe that the electron is a grain. Call it G. Then G would have itself its own spin. A rotating charged particle G generates a magnetic field. Call it m. If Einstein were correct, as the direction of M varies, its interaction between the grain G magnetic field m will vary. But it’s not the case: it is as if m did not count. At all. Does not count, at all, whatsoever. It’s all about M, the direction of M.

So Einstein was wrong: there is no grain G with an independent existence, an independent magnetic filed m.

Bohr was right: Einstein was, obviously, wrong. That does not mean that Bohr and his followers, who proclaimed the “Copenhagen Interpretation” were right on other issues. Just like Einstein hypothesized something he did not need, so did the Copenhagists.

Backtrack above: M is determined by the observer, I said (so bleated the Copenhagen herd). However, although M can changed by an observer, clearly an observer is NOT necessary to create a magnetic field M and its direction.

Overlooking that blatant fact, that not all magnetic fields are created by observers, is the source of Copenhagen confusion.

We saw above that correct philosophical analysis is crucial to physics. Computations are also crucial, but less so: a correct computation giving correct results can be made from false hypotheses (the paradigm here is epicycle theory: false axiomatics, the Sun did not turn around the Earth, yet, roughly correct computations produced what was observed).

Out of Quantum Theory came Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), and, from there, Quantum Field Theory (QFT).  

QED is one of the most precise scientific theory ever. However, there is much more precise: the mass of the photon is determined to be no more than 10^(-60) kilogram (by looking at whether the electromagnetic field of Jupiter decreases in 1/d^2…).

Nevertheless, QED is also clearly the most erroneous physical theory ever (by an order of 10^60). Indeed, it predicts, or rather uses, the obviously false hypothesis that there is some finite energy at each point of space. Ironically enough, it is Einstein and Stern (see above) who introduced the notion of “zero point energy” (so, when Einstein later could not understand, or refused to understand, Quantum Electrodynamics, it was not because all the weirdest concepts therein were not of his own making…)

The debate on the Foundations of Quantum Physics is strong among experts, all over the map, and permeated with philosophy. Thus don’t listen to those who scoff about whether philosophy is not the master of science: it always has been, it is frantically so, and always will be. It is a question of method: the philosophical method uses anything to construct a logic. The scientific method can be used only when one knows roughly what one is talking about. Otherwise, as in Zeroth Century, or Twentieth Century physics, one can go on imaginary wild goose chases.

From my point of view, Dark Matter itself is a consequence of the True Quantum Physics. This means that experiments could be devised to test it. The belief that some scientific theory is likely incites beholders to make experiments to test it. Absent the belief, there would be no will, hence no financing. Testing for gravitational waves was long viewed as a wild goose chase. However, the Federal government of the USA invested more than one billion dollars in the experimental field of gravitational wave detection, half a century after an early pioneer (who was made fun of). It worked, in the end, splendidly: several Black Hole (-like) events were detected, and their nature was unexpected, bringing new fundamental questions.

Some will say that all this thinking, at the edges of physics and philosophy is irrelevant to their lives, now. Maybe they cannot understand the following. Society can ether put its resources in making the rich richer, more powerful and domineering. Or society can pursue higher pursuits, such as understanding more complex issues. If nothing else, the higher technology involved will bring new technology which nothing else will bring (the Internet was developed by CERN physicists).

Moreover, such results change the nature not just of what we believe reality to be, but also of the logic we have developed to analyze it. Even if interest in all the rest faded away, the newly found diamonds of more sophisticated, revolutionary logics would not fade away.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Islam Versus Reality

December 16, 2015

Islam Versus Islam Cum Reality:

The Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, CERN, may have hit the jackpot with its mighty accelerator fed by French nuclear power plants: an apparent new particle, and one NOT predicted by the Standard Model. It could be a Heavy Higgs, or a Graviton…

Notice that the Islamist State has not attacked CERN, yet. However it should, just as a matter of coherence: after all, CERN is trying to define reality better. True Believers know that all the reality there is, is found in the Qur’an. Thus CERN, by exploring, and inventing a different version of reality, is a center of some reality based idolatry obviously adverse to the Qur’an.

Let’s hope CERN has good security (a very small bomb could cause billions of Euros of damage to the Large Hadron Collider, and stop it for years).

Some Of What’s In The Qur’an Can Be Reinterpreted Nicely

Some Of What’s In The Qur’an Can Be Reinterpreted Nicely

As I have tried to explain, Islamism has long been a manipulation which has adversely affected the enfolding of civilization, and that especially in the regions most affected. That Africa and the Middle East have contributed enormously to civilization and can still do so is beyond dispute. Be it only in music: listen to the Touareg group Imahran (the on-going turmoil in Libya is partly about freeing the Touareg). http://www.prospect.zone/imahran-nouveau-venu-sur-la-scene-rock-touareg-partage-les-visuels-de-tahabort/

Meanwhile The Guardian, which censored, as the New York Times does, anything I said vaguely related to Islam, decided to equip itself with a bit of balls and brains. So it published:

Muslims can reinterpret their faith: it’s the best answer to Isis: “Religion must evolve and change – and Islam is no exception. Hardline literalists are undermining the soul of a loving, universal creed.” by Hassan Radwan. (Never mind that the punishment for apostasy is death, no doubt a lasting effect of universal love, as some Saudi youth are discovering anew.)

Not just that, but, after informing me kindly that I was under surveillance, and thinking about it for a little while, The Guardian allowed some comments of mine to be published (which constitute part of what follows). That was a first in months.

Reinterpreting Islam is a solution I have insisted upon, for decades. It is true that most of the people who claim to be the faithful of a given religion have not read the sacred texts they claim to be obeying, and live accordingly. This enables very bad men, or youth, to hijack a religion to their own evil ends, by exploiting the bad quotes they can find, and living accordingly.

A detailed knowledge of history reveals much in the case of the Qur’an. It is not just that the Qur’an was written by people. The Qur’an claims to be the message from God, as transmitted by the Messenger, Muhammad. However, history itself says that this is not so.

The closest  people to Muhammad, his wife Aisha and his son in law, Ali, said that the Qur’an we have is not the Qur’an (Recitation) which Muhammad related. Aisha was as explicit as possible about this. She said that the people who knew Muhammad best knew obviously better what he said, than people who barely knew him. In particular she said that the Qur’an that was imposed by Uthman mistreated women (whereas Muhammad was very much for gender equality, and there is overwhelming historical evidence that this is completely true: Muhammad improved considerably the condition of women, and the effect was crucial in helping Islam forge a gigantic empire shortly before and after Muhammad’s unexpected death).

Aisha went to war about this, the atrocious sexism imposed by Uthman’s Qur’an. Unfortunately she lost the “Battle of the Camel” (named from the fact Aisha stood above the battlefield on a camel).

So what happened? The composition of a suitable Qur’an was ordered by the Fourth Caliph, the general Uthman.

Uthman set up a committee to write a Qur’an which suited him. Once that was done, he had all other versions of the Qur’an boiled, throughout the giant Muslim empire.

Thus history shows that the highest (religious) authorities, from the start, contested the validity of the existing Qur’an, that the Qur’an really represented faithfully what the Messenger related. It offers an explicit reason to modify it, by sticking closer to the more plausible version of what Muhammad said (follow Aisha!)

Christianism itself was heavily reinterpreted. The Christianism we tolerate now had all the naughty bits explicitly removed. Such as the Evangels’ Luke 27; 19 which is the predecessor of the Qur’an Sura 5, verse 9. Both verses enjoins to “slay” people who are considered to be “unbelievers“. Obviously, as Christ was ready to slay unbelievers, the Muslim version of God could not do anything else, just to keep up with the Jones (so the violence of the Qur’an partly originates from the violence of Christianism).

The problem with making the Qur’an we have compatible with civilization are very deep. The place of women (or inferior place thereof, what Aisha condemned) is in total contradiction with the United Nations Charter (in law, a woman is half a man, and a man can dissolve or enter marriage pretty much at will, his will; also “battlefield brides” are allowed, and that’s just condoning battlefield rape, as one can observe the Islamist State to practice).

Also the Qur’an is explicitly hostile to democracy (although it encourages charity and equality of all under God). It is actually explicitly friendly to dictators, as long as they are Muslim:

O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, Sura 4; verse 59). In other words, obey authority as a matter of religion. No wonder that, where the Qur’an rules, so do strongmen.

Saladin and his successors made the literal interpretation of the Qur’an subject to the death penalty. That started before 1200 CE.

In many places of the world, and sometimes very long ago, the fact that the Qur’an was incompatible with civilization was observed and the application of the Qur’an was modified in consequence by supplementary texts and practices. Such currents are often labelled  “Sufism”.

In recent decades, the monarchies of the Middle East were able to smother Sufism under their petrodollars, and replace it by the literalism that was expressly made unlawful in Egypt in the Twelfth Century.

By the 1930s, Literalist Islam had nearly disappeared from much of the “Muslim World”. However, the ascent of petro-monarchies after World War Two changed everything. The reason for their financing of Literalism (aka Salafism) was obvious: thus the dictatorships of the Middle East made the world more hospitable, and friendly, to them.

Meanwhile most opinion leaders in the West were too unfamiliar with Islam to understand that, as Abou Diouf of Senegal (ex-president and a Muslim himself) observed, the Islam of West Black Africa was a completely different religion from the Islam of Saudi Arabia. Thus they extended the respect some versions of Sufism richly deserved, to their fanatical antagonist, Literalist Islam.

In other words, Islamophobia is justified in some versions of Islam, and not at all in others. Justice is starting to understand this. In France Jihadist threats and “ordinary Islamism” brought more arrests in three weeks after the Paris attacks than in the rest of the year. 25% of the arrests were of adolescents. 66% resulted in jail condemnations.

This is obviously unsustainable. The solution is to advertise widely what forms of Islamist practices are available, and legal. And also to make Literal Islam explicitly unlawful. As it is, Literal Islam is unlawful only when it explicitly violate democratic law. Thus a great percentage of youth is imprinted on the notion and practices of Literal Islam, while not aware that they contradict the law. And that other versions of Islam exist, which are perfectly compatible with the Human Right Charter.

Meanwhile at CERN, the first team (those can have thousands of PhDs on board) who found the putative new particle said there was one chance out of 93 that this was a fluke. You have to understand that the usual standard is one out 3.5 million. Indeed, so many experiments are made, lots of flukes happen. So why the excitement? Because an independent team, with an independent experiment also found a bump at the same place.

Particles are all about bumps these days. Yet a bump on the road, such as Christianism in the Fourth Century, can be all it takes to send civilization packing.

Why? Because savagery is just below the surface. Humanity’s fate all too often holds just with a hair. Why? Because the savage, better connected as she, or he, is, with his, or her, emotional system, thinks more powerfully, in a sense best connected to war. That’s why Christian fanatics, who were savages, “men in black”, found so easy to go through civilization like a red hot knife through butter.

I savage, thus I think. Or not.

Patrice Ayme’

Israel & the China Man

October 26, 2015

What do Israel and the Chinaman have in common? Fundamental biases dislocating a correct vision of reality which all lemmings ardently share, thus finding themselves very smart.

Once there was an English student in Scotland, enraptured, with his friend Lyell, listening to the discoveries of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck a research professor in Paris’ Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, pertaining to the immense age of the Earth, demonstrated by the evolution of microscopic features in fossilized mollusks (the family of mollusks was defined by Lamarck’s senior competitor, research professor Georges Léopole Chrétien Frédéric Dagobert, Baron Cuvier).

Lyell’s, and other geologists’ field studies, mostly in France and Germany, showed indeed that stratigraphy and fossils confirmed Lamarck’s view. Darwin grew up, and later honorably tried to parrot in the Galapagos the work of Lamarck, with turtles and birds. However, the Galapagos are recent (maybe as little as nine million years), so speciation is weak: the birds are so little different, that there is a debate whether some of them are different species. Darwin did not have the good luck of Lamarck, studying really different, and extremely numerous mollusks.

In any case, the British Empire, in its wisdom, realized that Jesus Christ was becoming less of a bedrock of  the splendor of said empire, so it switched to Darwin, proclaiming him the creator of evolution, and thus multiplying further the aura of the British ways. It worked: the head of state of Canada is still the Queen of England.

Trudeau: My Son Will Learn From Me How To Manipulate The Stupid Out There

Trudeau: My Son Will Learn From Me How To Manipulate The Stupid Out There

In related news, China gave the “Confucius Prize” to the dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Mugabe has reigned over the country for 35 years. This makes sense: Confucius was all for oligarchy, not to say plutocracy, as these regimes brought (apparent) peace. Confucianism as the default mode of China has been its main problem for twenty-six hundred years: the same family is in charge of Confucius for 26 centuries. Mao understood this, and that is why he used as an excuse to launch his “Cultural Revolution”.

But back to that other pillar of empire, Darwin. Darwin had decided that man came out of Africa, so that truth having been established, as Charles had replaced Jesus, it has been repeated ever since. The fact that there was no proof, it was even better, as it was an occasion to cultivate the celebrity/superstitious muscle. Celebrity and superstition go well together, as both assume that concept or creatures who cannot be observed, are up there, and to be “believed” in. Cultivating one or the other pertains to the same mood, so they reinforce each other.

It’s harder to find fossils in China. The climate tends to be much wetter than in Africa, and cycles of great heat and deep freezing, in the north, are not friendly to delicate corpses, either. However:

Teeth from China Reveal an Early Human Trek out of Africa

“Stunning” find shows that Homo sapiens reached Asia around 100,000 years ago. [Nature, October 14, 2015.]

These 47 human teeth, dated to 80,000-120,000 years ago, were found in a limestone cave system in Daoxian, China. Those teeth from a cave in south China show that Homo sapiens reached China around 100,000 years ago—a time at which most researchers had assumed that our species had not trekked far beyond Africa.

“This is stunning, it’s major league,” says Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at the University of Oxford, UK who was not involved in the research. “It’s one of the most important finds coming out of Asia in the last decade.”

The teeth are unquestionably those of H. sapiens, says María Martinón-Torres, a palaeoanthropologist at University College London who co-led the study with colleagues Wu Liu and Xie-jie Wu at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing. Their small size, thin roots and flat crowns are typical for anatomically modern humans—H. sapiens—and the overall shape of the teeth is barely distinguishable from those of both ancient and present-day humans..

The team used calcite deposits, stratigraphy, and Uranium and Thorium datation methods.

“This demonstrates it was not a failed dispersal,” says Petraglia, who has long argued for an early expansion of modern humans through Asia on a southerly route. “This is a rock-solid case for having early humans—definitely Homo sapiens—at an early date in eastern Asia.”

Why were they Homo Sapiens Sapiens in China for 50,000 years, at least, before they appeared in Europe? Simple: stronger, smarter Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis were in the way.

That Homo would thrive in Asia is not surprising: it represents a huge amount of inhabitable warmish land. More such land than in Africa arguably. Neanderthals also occupied North Africa, so the Sapiens Sapiens would have had to sneak through. Maybe they did not sneak through, because Sapiens Sapiens is just the tropical variant of Homo, so was represented on both sides of the tropics equally. As I argued, once Neanderthals wore pants, .they may as well go tropical too, and revert to the more delicate, smaller, thus more prolific version of Sapiens.

In any case, this shows that turning scientists into gods is an insult to science: Einstein had no reason to believe in local reality, except that he had been conditioned (= fabricated) that way. The Einstein-robot just repeated mechanically what he knew by rote about reality. Fine. What’s not fine, was to make that into a religion. Same for some of Darwin’s pronouncements.

Some will say that’s just science, and surely politics don’t make the same mistake. Yet a beautiful example is the case of Israel. Netanyahu dared to go outside of official script, by pointing out that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a sort of Muslim Pope, took part in the extermination of the Jews. This is factually true.

Yet as all the deepest truths of World War Two, it’s no good to proffer it, if all you want is peace, in your little world, or, more exactly, torpor.

So what of Israel? Exasperated by Jewish rebellions which turned into full blown wars which killed many legionnaires, Rome outlawed Israel, threw the Jews out, and called the place Palestina.

225 years later, the philosopher-emperor, Julian, having studied in Athens and been elected in Paris, decided that the punishment had lasted long enough, and ordered the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and the return of the Jews. However Julian got killed, and replaced by Christian fanatics even worse than the ones before.

So here we are.

The “Two-States” solution will never work (long story). The facts, on the ground, is that Israel is not just occupying, colonizing, but invading the “West Bank” (60% of it).Denying this, and that the forces at work are so colossal, they can’t be stopped, is being a partisan of the present situation, the slow eating of Palestine by the Israeli boa.

What’s the only solution which can work? The One-State solution: one state, secular, rights of all critters, respected. That is the Israeli government has to respect the human rights of minorities.

Meanwhile Ivory Coast voted for president, for the economist turned president who had been barred, after being PM, from the Ivorian citizenship (for having not all his ancestors Ivorian). Ouattara got to power, thanks to some judiciously placed French rockets which landed his all too dictatorial predecessor in jail.

Some grumbled it all reminds them of “France-Afrique”, the connection between business interests, and the military help France provides with. Yes, sure, but as with Darwin or Israel, one has to look at reality: “France-Afrique” is bad, but the alternatives,  USA Africa or Africa, Idi Amin Dada, or Mugabe style, are worse roads to plutocracy.

France cannot keep on making war on the behalf of all Europe, plus civilization, without finding a way to pay for it. And the same holds even for the much richer USA.

Canada elected heir, and hair apparent, Trudeau son of Trudeau (see above) has promised many things, including the Keystone Pipeline, something that not even Obama supports (Keystone is an attempt to make Canada even more filthy rich from filthy oil tar, while melting the permafrost up north). Weirdly, everybody is applauding, although, not satisfied with smothering the biosphere, Justin Trudeau has made many pro-Islamist utterances (the way he sees it, it just brings him votes).

Training to recognize reality can be done best in science, but what is learned has to be brought to politics. If you want progress, for real, stick to truth, for real.

Patrice Ayme’

Transgender, Transreal, & How Pluto Profits

October 24, 2015

I am very transgender in mentality. In both directions, of course. Whatever that exactly means. I also know that gender is a matter of an hormonal landscape, in which chromosome identity (XX, XY, XXY, etc.) is only one factor. However, that does not mean I throw reality out of the window.

Humanity is steering the planet, towards oblivion. The obvious cause is that we are led by greedy, clownish “leaders” who masquerade as “elected”. In truth, they are not leading, they are just middle-men who hope to make a good “career” by pleasing the masters, like the butlers they are.

Yet the situation is worse than it looks. Consider the middle Middle Ages. The European Middle Ages, but I could adjust the same discourse to the Indian, Chinese, or Japanese Middle Ages. Europe is a clearer, better known case. It was a time of princesses, princes, and devotion to the Christian god. As Sade, Nietzsche, and various mafiosi observed, it was just the opposite: the European aristocracy was barely more than the largest organized crime operation in the world, and the wars it organized, a way to physically and mentally divided the people they subjugated into minced meat (when truly necessary).

Agnes Sorel Forced Charles VII To Make War, Or She Would Bed The English King Instead, As Eleanor Did.

Agnes Sorel Forced Charles VII To Make War, Or She Would Bed The English King Instead, As Eleanor Did.

Wedding the English king after divorcing the French king is what Eleanor, Duchesse d’Aquitaine had done earlier, and had many children. All subsequent English and French monarchs were her descendants for generations.

What was wrong with the Middle Ages?

The mood. This veneration of people such as Eleanor.

The “Christian” mood of the populace, the fake-Christian, hysterical mood of the leaders. The mood, superstitious and full of tribal anger (consider the pogroms against Jews, Cathars, Waldenses/Protestants, “witches”; and the crisscrossing of Europe by war parties and related “grandes companies” and other armies of brigands).

The superstitious mood is entangled by the celebrity mood, and both are adverse to the triumph of wisdom. The celebrity mood made people look up to princes and princesses (the word, originally used when the Roman Republic was dying, comes from “princeps”, first, and Augustus loved it).

Germaine Greer once at the edge of feminism, is now condemned as somebody so bad by a tribe so well-organized, a university she was supposed to talk at, implied that she should not be allowed to speak in public (as they will not insure her safety). The loudly “transgender” pseudo-tribe has condemned Greer. And, as usual, there is the public discourse, and the real one I suspect (below).

In Reality Greer Attacked The Celebrities Paid To Attack Reality, The Kadarshians

In Reality Greer Attacked The Celebrities Paid To Attack Reality, The Kadarshians

[In the USA, everything is bigger, compare with the “Dame de Beaute'”, the Fifteenth Century Agnes Sorel, above. And Kim Kadarshian is the specialist of reality, or so you will find, Rollingstone asserts, once you enter her real world…]

Tribalism is the way out of metaphysical loneliness. One advantage of “careers” is that they manufacture tribalism. An advantage of hostility strongly shared, let alone mass hatred, is that it creates a fake world solved by tribalism, and the tribal cement to go with.

Witness what is going on in Israel/Palestine. The best solution there is a global secular republic (or union) containing two states therein (a bit like the European Union model).

Chris Snuggs: ““philosophy” means “love of knowledge”, which has actually little to do with what philosophers do. What today is “science” was once “philosophy”. What today’s philosophy is is basically “speculation about the nonscientific” or ” speculative musing about the meaning of life and the processes of thought and its expression through language.”

Patrice: “Linguistic” philosophy has grown malignant indeed. Yet, philosophy, the philosophical method, is more needed than ever, and that is exactly why it is more dead than ever in the plutocratic system, and its universities. There, what passes for philosophy is all too often just garbage.

Watch what I said about the importance of moods. I am applying the philosophical method: telling the truth, sticking to reality. Mood calculus includes, crucially, the unsaid, and unexpressed.

The deepest questions at the edge of science, from Lamarckism to what it means when galaxies recess faster than light, or whether high energy physicists know what they are talking about, involve state of the art philosophy.

However, indeed, Chris, what’s often taught in philosophy departments is abysmal, indeed. This has to do with the fact that it takes (say) a decade to study all of science at high enough a level beyond high school, to have a fair idea of the scientific landscape.

Society, let alone universities, do not view this sort of global knowledge as valuable. Plato required the equivalent of a graduate level knowledge of mathematics. Nearly all “philosophers” now don’t know anymore calculus than Trudeau, Cameron, Hollande, Putin, Xi, Roussef, or Obama.

But of the degeneracy of philosophy has to do with the rise of “analytic philosophy” in Anglo-Saxon countries. Russell, its founder found it had become thoroughly unworthy. On the continent, the derangement was due to the rise of fascism (Soviet or Mussolini style).

What did the veteran feminist, Ms Greer say, which supposedly infuriated some transgender fanatics?

“I just don’t think that surgery turns a man into a woman. A perfectly permissable view. I mean, an un-man is not necessarily a woman. We don’t really know what women are and I think that a lot of women are female impersonators, because our notion of who we are is not authentic, and so I am not surprised men are better at impersonating women than women are. Not a surprise, but it’s not something I welcome.”

Surgery, as practiced today, is little different from what the best prehistoric doctors did successfully: amputation. OK, in the future, we will grow organs. It is studied. It is the future. But not yet a fact.

Kim Kadarshian seems to believe that reality, or rather, learning how to rape reality, is her business model. Said she, talking about her transgender, surgery challenged step-father, now a pseudo-woman:

“He lives his life the way he wants, a really authentic life, and he was like, ‘If you can’t be authentic and you can’t live your life, what do you have?’”

You want authenticity? Ask the Kadarshians, they know all about it. They accept plastic, any day.

Germaine Greer has accused TV star Caitlyn Jenner of emulating the limelight of other (female) members of the Kadarshians family.

The Australian-born feminist courted controversy by asserting that “misogyny played a big part” in the rumors that Glamour magazine would give Jenner its woman of the year award.

Jenner, who was born Bruce, and got many Olympic medals as a male, was married to Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian’s mother, until they filed for divorce early last year, and cannot get enough of his celebrity status, apparently.

Greer says that so-called transgender women, who, admittedly, began life as males, before undergoing surgery and hormone treatments to “become women”, are “not women”. Greer says that they do not “look like, sound like or behave like women”. Instead they behave as males who want to steal everything from women, including femininity. So they trample not just on reality, but on justice too.

Clearly those transgender creatures, not to say creations, are not females (that requires XX chromosomes). But to pretend that they are females, because some people just said so, is the effect the owners of the Main Stream Media, all very rich men, are after: namely destroy any common sense, and make a religion out of that destruction.

Not to say that attack against reality are only the work of transgender crazies. Giving the Nobel Prize to drone crazy Obama was not just funny, but unreal. And not that this was started yesterday. Among the pious, ever since Viceroy Lord Mountbatten said so, Gandhi has been viewed as a paragon of pacifism. Never mind that pacifist Gandhi, praying like an Hindu, helped to bring colossal, multi-generational, religious strife, 15 million refugees, & millions dead. (No wonder he got depressed.)

Christianism to is a religion of peace and love, especially regarding Cathars (exterminated), Jews (pogromized), Muslims (roasting their children a must when hungry, see the First Crusade), or any sort of intellectuals or printers (burned alive). And Joan of Arc, the one of the same king as Agnes Sorel, of course saved France, or so pseudo-French fanatics, by re-igniting a war with London which lasted another four centuries with real guns, and which France is still busy losing, to this day…

Reality is a hard mistress, and the one which always wins. Yet, we control it, to a great extent now, because we are the nonlinear species, ready, even mandated, for immortality. Not that we have a choice.  Humanity is the “why” species. Also the “no” species. Yes, no and why, for the God(s), incarnated, for real. And the problem the gods have is whether they want to aspire to grab Kim’s fake reality, or stick to exercising our reality muscles.

Patrice Ayme’

Reality Beats Fiction Always. Time to Learn This Again!

October 8, 2015

Let’s hope Angela Merkel gets the Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous stand to accept hundreds of thousands of war refugees. This is political dynamite, she handled it as well as possible, as a teacher of the highest values. A rare case of a Western “leader” displaying courage and creativity.

Meanwhile the Nobel in literature was given to reality. Svetlana Alexievich, a Belarussian journalist, born in Ukraine, a prose writer known for deeply researched works about female Russian soldiers in World War II and the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, won the Nobel Prize in Literature on Thursday “for her polyphonic writings, a monument to suffering and courage in our time,” the Swedish Academy announced. (The other day the Nobel was implicitly given to history, 23 centuries old. If they recognize history, the Nobel folks may as well recognize reality.)

Ms. Alexievich,67, 14th woman to win the literature prize, is a rarity: her sparse work is mainly nonfiction.

Work Makes Free: the Murderous Nazi Thieves’ Outrageous Slogan. The Reality of Nazism Ought To Have Beaten To Death The Soft Fiction Of Deluded Humanism

Work Makes Free: the Murderous Nazi Thieves’ Outrageous Slogan. The Reality of Nazism Ought To Have Beaten To Death The Soft Fiction Of Deluded Humanism

Yes, in World War Two, short in skilled personnel, the USSR used women in combat. Some even commanded tanks. And it’s mostly with tanks, better tanks, but maybe at the cost of twenty million soldiers killed in combat, that the Soviet Union beat Nazi Germany. I remember reading an Italian non-fiction book. After hard fighting in Ukraine, the author was stunned to see a beautiful Russian blonde dead in her punctured tank (not her tank top, her T34 tank). Take that, fiction authors! Where is your reality?

What’s literature? “Litera”, original Latin for “letter” came to mean ‘document’ and ‘letter, epistle’. “Literatura” is ‘writing formed with letters, book learning’. Nothing there said it has to be fiction. However in French literary circles, ‘literature’ has come to mean ‘fiction’. I view fiction as, mostly, an inferior sort. It is to reality what pornography is to sex. And not even that.

Any fiction is inspired by reality: after all, reality is where minds come from. However, confusing fiction with reality can be a trap. The authors of fiction who are known made their work marketable (otherwise they would not be known). But marketing is not enticing with thinking: it entices with seduction. Marketing perverts thinking, it’s sugar for canned minds.

And a canned mind, is not a kind mind. Or, more exactly, a canned mind is as good as the can it is in. Beware of cans, especially of the mental type: after a while, they turn bad, and fester with live toxins.

In contrast, by evoking reality, one can dare to go where the market does not want to go, and where the market cannot go. Facts are facts, they are not made to be comfortable. Facts are, all too often, not something one wants to buy. Why? Because we have turned into a society which confuses market and civilization. We ask, we tolerate to have the “markets” of everything and guide us.

It was high time the Nobel literature committee recognize that being able to present reality, especially reality in all its harshness, is more important than presenting someone’s fiction as if it were reality (as novelists are wont to do with wanton abandonment!) In one case, sticking to reality, one tries to stick to what is, and in the other, confusing reality and fiction, one admittedly do away with reality, at the outset, and replace reality with what can be sold to the little minds of the shoppers, avid and standardized.

Humanity has to be educated. This is what literature is for. Literature is not just intellectual masturbation. Too much sugar for too long makes one sick, and it’s a modern disease (one aspect is called diabetes, and kills, ages and degenerates its victims). Sugar drinks ought to be rejected. Similarly all too easy, all too comfortable fiction. Bring forth reality, the maker of worlds.

Considering reality, in full, is uncomfortable.

What do people foresee if the West Antarctic Ice Shield (WAIS), the Wilkes Basin and the Aurora Basin all collapse at the same time? Sea level may augment as fast as one meter per year.

I speculate: that’s 30 times faster than the most recent peer-reviewed scientific papers by specialists.

I speculate, but in full cognizance of striking elements of reality, catastrophes such as the sudden flooding of the Black Sea region, or flooding of the Mediterranean Basin, or the collapse of the Hudson Bay ice shield, or the Younger Dryas’ sudden collapse of the Gulf Stream current, and so on.

What I foresee is a quick adaptation of most values, as Homo Sapiens will present the largest biomass which one could possibly exploit. How quaint today’s fiction will then seem!

Knowing the world feeds the imagination. Knowing only fiction literature is getting to know only the minds of the fashionable and marketable, and how they learned to seduce the commons. Yet, reality is not common. The wise needs more: reality in full.

Patrice Ayme’

REALITY: At Your COMMAND, FASTER Than LIGHT

September 11, 2015

Feynman:”It is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.” 

Einstein: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Nature: “That’s how the world works.”

Wilzcek (Physics Nobel Prize): “Naïveté is doing the same thing over and over, and always expecting the same result.”

Parmenides, the ancient Greek philosopher, theorized that reality is unchanging and indivisible and that movement is an illusion. Zeno, a student of Parmenides, devised four famous paradoxes to illustrate the logical difficulties in the very concept of motion. Zeno’s arrow paradox starts and ends this way:

  • If you know where an arrow is, you know everything about its physical state….
  • The arrow does not move…

Classical Mechanics found the first point to be erroneous. To know the state of a particle, one must know not only its position X, but also its velocity and mass (what’s called its momentum P). Something similar happens with Quantum Physics. To know the state of a particle, we need to know whether the state of what it has interacted with before…  exists, or not. According to old fashion metaphysics, that’s beyond weird. It’s simply incomprehensible.

The EPR Interaction: Zein Und Zeit. For Real.

The EPR Interaction: Zein Und Zeit. For Real.

[The Nazi philosopher Heidegger, an ex would-be priest, wrote a famous book “Being And Time“. However, rather than a fascist fantasy, the EPR is exactly about that level of depth: how existence and time come to be! And how those interact with our will…]

With that information, X and P, position and momentum, for each particle, classical mechanics predicts a set of particles’ future evolution completely. (Formally dynamic evolution satisfies a second order linear differential equation. That was thoroughly checked by thousands of officers of gunnery, worldwide, over the last five centuries.)

Highly predicting classical mechanics is the model of Einstein Sanity.

Aristotle had ignored the notion of momentum, P. For Aristotle, one needed a force to maintain motion (an objective proof of Aristotle’s stupidity; no wonder Aristotle supported, and instigated, fascist dictatorship as the best system of governance). Around 1320 CE, the Parisian genius Buridan declared that Aristotle was completely wrong and introduced momentum P, calling it “IMPETUS”.

May we be in a similar situation? Just like the Ancient Greeks had ignored P, is Quantum Wave Mechanics incomplete from an inadequate concept of what a complete description of the world is?

Einstein thought so, and demonstrated it to his satisfaction in his EPR Thought Experiment. The EPR paper basically observed that, according to the Quantum Axiomatics, two particles, after they interacted still formed JUST ONE WAVE. Einstein claimed that there had to exist hidden “elements of reality”, not yet identified in the (Copenhagen Interpretation of) quantum theory. Those heretofore hidden “elements of reality” would re-establish Einstein Sanity, Einstein feverishly hoped.

According to Einstein, following his friend Prince Louis De Broglie (to whom he had conferred the Doctorate) and maybe the philosopher Karl Popper (with whom he corresponded prior on non-locality), Quantum Mechanics appears random. But that randomness is only because of our ignorance of those “hidden variables.” Einstein’s demonstration rested on the impossibility of what he labelled “spooky action at a distance”.

That was an idea too far. The “spooky action at a distance” has been (amply) demonstrated in the meantime. Decades of experimental tests, including a “loophole-free” test published on the scientific preprint site arxiv.org last month, show that the world is like that: completely non-local everywhere.

In 1964, the physicist John Bell, CERN’s theory chief, working with David Bohm’s version of Einstein’s EPR thought experiment, identified an inequality obeyed by any physical theory that is both local — meaning that interactions don’t travel faster than light — and where the physical properties usually attributed to “particles” exist prior to “measurement.”

(As an interesting aside, Richard Feynman tried to steal Bell’s result, at a time when Bell was not famous, at least in the USA: a nice example of “French Theory” at work! And I love Feynman…)

Einstein’s hidden “elements of reality” probably exist, but they are NON-LOCAL. (Einstein was obsessed by locality; but that’s an error. All what can be said in favor of locality is that mathematics, and Field Theory, so far, are local: that’s the famous story of the drunk who looks for his keys under the lamp post, because that’s the only thing he sees.)

Either some physical influences travel faster than light, or some properties don’t exist before measurement. Or both

I believe both happen. Yes, both: reality is both faster than light, and it is pointwise fabricated by interactions (“measurement”). Because:

  1. The EPR Thought Experiment established the faster than light influence (and that was checked experimentally).
  2. But then some properties cannot exist prior to “EPR style influence”. Because, if they did, why do they have no influence whatsoever, once the EPR effect is launched?

Now visualize the “isolated” “particle”. It’s neither truly “isolated” nor truly a “particle”, as some of its properties have not come in existence yet. How to achieve this lack of existence elegantly? Through non-localization, as observed in the one-slit and two-slit experiments.

Why did I say that the “isolated” “particle” was not isolated? Because it interfered with some other “particle” before. Of course. Thus it’s EPR entangled with that prior “particle”. And when that “particle” is “measured” (namely INTERACTS with another “particle”), the so-called “isolated” “particle” gets changed, by the “spooky action at a distance”, at a speed much faster than light.

(This is no flight of fancy of mine, consecutive to some naïve misinterpretation; Zeilinger and Al. in Austria, back-checked the effect experimentally; Aspect in Paris and Zeilinger got the Wolf prize for their work on non-locality, so the appreciation for their art is not restricted to me!)

All these questions are extremely practical: they are at the heart of the difficulties in engineering a Quantum Computer.

Old physics is out of the window. The Quantum Computer is not here yet, because the new physics is not understood enough, yet.

Patrice Ayme’

With Physics Like That, Who Needs Reality?

June 9, 2015

The quest for reality has been exemplified by science. However:

From a recent New York Times op-ed, “A Crisis at the Edge of Physics:”

“DO physicists need empirical evidence to confirm their theories?

You may think that the answer is an obvious yes, experimental confirmation being the very heart of science. But a growing controversy at the frontiers of physics and cosmology suggests that the situation is not so simple.”

In December 2014 famous physicists George Ellis and Joseph Silk, published in the journal Nature…Scientific Method: Defend the Integrity of Physics…Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science.”

Science is immensely old. I pointed this out for dogs in “Very Ancient Relationships“. The Ancient Greeks had more than six breeds of cattle which had been evolved in Greece, specifically, to genetically modify them in a suitable manner:

Obtained By Ancient Greece Artificial & Natural Selections

Obtained By Ancient Greece Artificial & Natural Selections

[The Greeks were famous for their mix of natural and artificial selection of cattle.]

Ellis and Silk wrote that:

“This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

Actually, Ellis and Silk are completely wrong there. The theory that the Earth turned around the Sun, originated by Aristarchus of Samos (a Greek island in sight of Anatolia, presently swamped by refugees). Its competitor was the geocentric theory. However, there was a strong argument against geocentrism: it stretched credulity. Indeed, the Greeks could compute that the Sun was much much larger than the Earth. It made sense that the little thing turned around the big thing as Buridan pointed out (around 1330 CE). To this geocentrists could only reply with silly arguments such as: man and his creator are big, etc.

So Karl Popper was also wrong. In the most spectacular case.

The Heliocentric Theory was a full blown scientific theory, so was the Geocentric Epicycles. However only a careful study of the illumination of the phases of Venus showed definitively that the the latter was wrong. This happened only in the mid-Seventeenth Century.

Ellis and Silk: “Chief among the ‘elegance will suffice’ advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the ‘only game in town’ capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the ‘many worlds’ version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts.”

In other words, many leading physicists are arguing for leaving behind the search for evidence, the old fashion way, leaving no stone unturned, just like smart prehistoric men did. Instead:

“These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man’s-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any.

The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles…. In March 2014, one of the founders of inflation theory, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in Nature that “the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result”.

As I said above, Popper was wrong: falsifiability is neither necessary, nor sufficient to qualify a theory as scientific.

Another example of untestable theory was biological evolution through natural selection: they Greeks knew it to be true. One can read the theory explicitly stated in Lucretius’ giant poem about the universe. However the Greeks did not. know how to test it. The only tests they knew were indirect, they had to do with ARTIFICIAL selection.

Still biological evolution was a valid scientific theory, although untestable for millennia, and perhaps even hundreds of thousand of millennia. Many a shaman is bound to have stumbled upon it.

New York Times: “Implicit in such a maneuver is a philosophical question: How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally? Should we abandon it just because, at a given level of technological capacity, empirical support might be impossible? If not, how long should we wait for such experimental machinery before moving on: ten years? Fifty years? Centuries? …

Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?”

Not even that. Epicycles were useful and observable. They actually are true in some sense, because they reflect Fourier Analysis of periodic motions.

Today’s most brandished “scientific” theories have nothing good about them, and worse of all, they don’t pass the smell test. Just as the Geocentric Theory did not pass the smell test. Just much worse. Theories were a gazillion universes get created in every cubic millimeters are just insane. Arguable even more insane as the worst from Daesh.

And guess what? Both insanities are related. If all what our supposedly best minds, our most rational, most scientific minds can produce, and brandish, is sheer insanity, why can’t Islam Fundamentalists, Saudi despots, North Korean dictators, and hordes of degenerated plutocrats not be crazy too?

So why not go with the flow? There are jobs to be had there. Saudi Arabia is looking for more eight more executioners to execute those who “insult Islam“. No experience necessary. Just a willingness to whip and “amputate”.

Patrice Ayme’

Against Literature, Yet For Modiano

October 9, 2014

So Patrick Modiano got the Nobel Prize in literature, the 15th French to be so honored (Sartre declined it). Was it about France? Living in an imaginary world, full of imaginary friends?

I do not know Modiano’s work (but I have seen him try to talk on TV, many times in the past). Actually I do not know literature. Not anymore. Generally, it bores me to death. I used to read a lot, in my zeroes, including Dickens, Moby Dick, Hugo, Dumas. Later I did Voltaire, Moliere, Corneille, Shakespeare, lots of Latin authors (sometimes in the original, although that was time-consuming, somewhat pointless).

Rosny Aine’’s War of Fire (Guerre du Feu) and Victor Hugo made a lasting impression. But not as much as Caesar. Some other famous authors I found completely indigestible. Then came my teenage years pass: I grew up. My focus of inquiry turned to the real world. I found that wild baboons had more to say that was authentic, than self-admiring tycoons of letters parading in Paris’ smoky saloons.

What’s wrong with literature?

I watch French literature shows on TV, where famous authors come, and are interviewed. Some are well connected cuties, like Amelie Nothombe, who just made an entire book about drinking drugs, to great applause. She is a scion of an originally aristocratic English family whose father, somehow, ended as Belgian ambassador to Japan (thus the grandson of Britain’s Queen Victoria ended as Kaiser of Germany while his cousin was Czar of Russia). She sold millions of books, and she is as interesting as a door knob with a black hat.

So I watch those literature shows the French are obsessed with, and the scenario is always the same. Some guy (it’s most often a guy, barring the occasional cutie) comes and starts to speak about some fictitious character(s) whom he invented with letters, as if that creation had really existed.

Others swarm around, mouth gaping about the pathetic inventions, feeble echoes  of a distant real universe, evoked by the great man, as if it had all really happened. They are exactly like little children with a bedtime story.

But all I see is some guy telling me about some people in his imagination, in his imaginary circumstances doing his imaginary things. I see the guy, I see him, I see his limitations, I see that he says what he says because of who he is. Generally somebody whose reality is far more mediocre, far more mundane thn the real reality out there.

Mundane is a problem. Mundane comes from the Old French mondain “of this world, worldly, earthly, secular.” Mondain has come to mean, in modern French “from the upper reaches of glittering high society”.

Methinks that the confusion between this very limited imaginary make-believe and the real world, contributes a lot to the gathering failure known as France, or, for that matter, the gathering failure of the West.

What do I propose instead?

I propose that those who sell (lots of) books are not necessarily the top intellectuals. Pure imagination looking at its own navel goes only that far (as Buddhism has amply demonstrated).

I propose that literature is not philosophy. Reading, and writing, children fables, is different from scathingly critical thinking (which top philosophy, or physics, has always to be… I am not talking about perfecting blue LEDs here).

In the particular case of Modiano, I should not be that critical. Like  J. M. G. Le Clézio, here is an author that has deeply inquired about reality… Instead of just petting the masses.

Patrick Modiano’s Nobel, is, to some extent an acknowledgment that literature stands to gain much by interrogating the cold, real facts of the Dark Side of man. Modiano’s work is much about what happened during the more than four years during which France was occupied by the Nazis. He actually hunted down some facts, and the tragic fate, say, of a girl assassinated in Auschwitch (Dora Bruder).

The period, Nazism, was a great revelator of human nature, in all sorts of astounding ways, and has not been tapped enough that way. So, be it only for that, it’s excellent that Modiano got recognized (it’s not his first prize).

Modiano evokes a Nazi collaborator, who is also a Jew. No doubt it’s fun to ponder the facts. But reality is much more striking. A Jew like Hannah Arendt ended in her adviser’s bed, the extremely prominent and nefarious Nazi Martin Heidegger (himself a devout Catholic married to someone else).

After the war, Hannah and Martin made friends again. Hannah, by then famous, and an authentic resistance fighter, condemned whole sale the Jewish Councils for having collaborated with Hitler. She was right. But she was hated for it. She also did not get the Nobel, although this was a very important perspective upon human nature.

I have myself spent a lot of time mulling over the Nazi period, as it is an excellent teacher (so is the reaction of the Politically Correct about those who meditate on Nazism).

I do feel like imagining what went through Edwin Rommel’s mind, went he went from Nazi, mass murdering, war criminal monster in 1940, to somebody who, by 1944 stood in opposition to much of what he had fanatically propped up earlier.

However, I don’t feel as making up imaginative explanations I do not have a good evidence for.

Although I have read several dozens of thousands of pages on the subject, all of them claiming to depict reality, I have never opened a book of Modiano.

I have the same problem with Greco-Roman history. I enjoy the historians, and the original documents. But I cannot stand the fictionalized histories purporting to depict what happened. (I tried to read many of those.) The problem? They come short. They make palatable the unpalatable, thus losing the main point. “Presentism” degenerates not just history, but what history can teach about reality.

I have seen several movies purporting to depict Hitler. But I have the real books and documents where one can see Hitler thinking, for real, and that is much more instructive. Hitler thought of himself as an artistic genius (quite a bit like Nero), but others also thought he was a genius, and a kind one (!). Reading him in context explains why his monstrosity went undetected by the deliberately naive.

No novelist could depict Hitler for real, be it only because readers and critics would detest it, call it names, and the novelist will get no readers to speak of. Thus would not become a novelist, and even less, a Nobelist.

Novelism, Nobelism, literature, are all about marketing, in the end. It’s about the next best new (novel) thing which sells so well that a few old guys in Stockholm notice it.

Evidence, the real world, teach. Teach wisdom. Adulating marketing teaches the folly of the herd.

Littera” in Latin originally just mean “letter”, and, from that, a writing. Confusing whatever is written with reality is a disease. However, writing whatever as a possible imaginative path to reality, is a wisdom. A wisdom which, confronted to reality, always comes short. The trap of literature is to make feeble, marketable imagination, a fashion show, in other words, into all the reality that matters.

The Nobel Prize in literature will never replace the non-existent Nobel Prize in wisdom. But then, of course, only the wise can judge the wise. To the ant, the baboon is rather dumb to crush it under foot. There is nothing more unfair than mental capability, that’s why some try to compensate it, by offering bananas.

Patrice Ayme’

 

Cap Wealth To Decapitate Plutocracy

January 30, 2014

By law, under the Republic, Individual Roman wealth was capped at the equivalent of a few dozens of millions. The reason why is that the Roman had great understanding of the reasons exposed below.

That capping of the wealth of families was the law for more than 250 years (before that, there simply were no Romans rich enough to make such a law necessary). A conservative Consul, and great general who had been elected dictator during the invasion of Rome by a Gallic army had the law passed around 380 CE.

That law capping wealth became ineffective when Rome conquered most of the Mediterranean. By then hyper rich Roman invested overseas. The hyper rich created the Republic Of Offshore, and avoided taxation all together.

That caused, first, enormous inequalities. Then, when righteous politicians tried to enforce the law a civil war that, thanks to buying politicians, and using political assassinations, the plutocrats won. After that, the Roman Republic declined and fell, until, in 400 CE, the Roman government, unable to pay the army, put the Franks in charge of the defense of Gallia and both Germania Inferior and Superior.

We are launched in the same exact same pattern nowadays. Plutocrat Tom Perkins’s loud claims that the Jews were the 1%  in Germany is delirious. Just as his claim that the hyper rich are persecuted, same as the Jews were.

It’s actually plutocrats similar to him who created, financed, enabled, armed and fueled the Nazis. Let alone exerted undue influences on the Anglo-Saxon government to isolate the French Republic in its attempts to throw Nazism out.

American plutocrats’ influence on the Congress of the USA explains why the Congress, having legislated against France and Britain’s attack against Hitler in 1939, refused absolutely to give an ultimatum to the Nazis, and waited bovinely until Hitler declared war to the USA well after Pearl Harbor. Those years of infamy, were the years of gathering plutocratic strength in the USA, as American plutocrats carefully nurtured Hitler and Mussolini.

The immensely rich are intrinsically evil, for the good and simple reason that primates are just, and the hyper rich’s very existence is not. After all, money is power, and immense money is immense power. Power on whom? Other people.

Feeling their intrinsic evil, the hyper rich sink ever closer to Pluto, by using their power to pay politicians and media to distort reality ever more. We see it in Ukraine, in Russia, in Turkey. How much do we need to see here, before realizing that it is after civilization itself that plutocracy is?

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/plutocracy-nazism-are-entangled/#comments