Are We at Crossed Purposes, A default setting, if we are honest with ourselves is to anticipate most of what we are going to hear? So as much as we like to think we listen, being at crossed purposes is likely far more common than we realise. Every conversation has its own unwritten small print this small print is the lens with which all anticipation and interpretation of external information gets filtered back into our deeper thoughts and are assigned their proper place in our own conceptual order of meaning to OurSelves, singularly not in any Royal We sense but sui generis to our own design between our individual self and the great cosmological static.
When we gain knowledge of the world are we experiencing it or are we thinking it? It is really a combination and a cycle between, Sleep and dreaming and Awakeness and automatic experiences External Sensing and imaginings within our thinking portal.
The eyes are the window to the soul looking in, but the soul is us looking out and acquiring physical experience of possibilities outside of our thoughtful imaginings.
our human Being is a portal that offers access to dimensions of Being and dimensions of thinking and combines the dimensions of Being and Thinking when we employ our powerful interdimensional apparatus to synthesise shareable goods or sometimes we synthesise a combination of Bads.
When we discover the truth everyone will not be a winner, one can think of many situations and states of affairs which should the truth be honoured, then some group or collection of powerful interests may lose some previously justified privilege. This essayical melange is not though, about the defense of the indefensible it is about making our wishes clear, stating our opinions clearly and honestly and seeking agreement. Agreement to disagree is a much preferable outcome to an enduring resentment against those with whom we differ, about some matter or state of affairs.
“Whenever you get two people interpreting the same data in different ways,” “that’s metaphysics.” is a quote from an interview published in Scientific American with Thomas Khun the coiner of the term and proposer of the concept of paradigm shifts.
We are not in the habit of stating the limits of which, what we believe and state as fact will remain to be true and stand up to scrutiny. We tend to state our claims as if they were absolutes much of the time.
The Good Life design plastic toys in Cornflakes packets.
The Basic theme of this video is that the sham of political Choice presented as democracy is puppeteering of cloned politicians who parrot the NeoLiberal Ideology of The Oligarchical Class so that Human Slave Farming can be continued with as little resistance or trouble from we Plebs in the precariat as possible. I imagine the Politicians we are offered as the Plastic Prizes given by corporations with our cereal packets in the morning, Tom Goode in the Good Life designed them as his Job. (Plastic Animals not Politicians)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goo…his 40th birthday, Tom Good is no longer able to take his job seriously and gives up work as a draughtsman for a company that makes plastic toys for breakfast cereal packets. http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blog…
Processes of Experience and processes of Thought. Habits of Evolution ( pierce) Stories and storytelling the projection of art and information are always into the grey space onto the Tableaux. Inkspot analysis cloud watching, Rolph Harris do you see what it is yet. Context, Motivation, Manipulation, Raw Data, Peer Review, Repeatable results Falsifiability
Incompleteness, boundary conditions or Limits.
IF. 0 = True , IF. 1 = False, IF. REF= 1:10 otherwise GO TO Menu?
A CLASSIFYING ALGEBRA FOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS J¨urgen Fuchs X DESY Notkestraße 85, D – 22603 Hamburg Christoph Schweigert CERN CH – 1211 Gen`eve 23
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9708141.pdf (MetaPhysics ?)Or (Physics?). Abstract We introduce a finite-dimensional algebra that controls the possible boundary conditions of a conformal field theory. For theories that are obtained by modding out a Z2 symmetry (corresponding to a so-called Dodd-type, or half-integer spin simple current, modular invariant), this classifying algebra contains the fusion algebra of the untwisted sector as a subalgebra. Proper treatment of fields in the twisted sector, so-called fixed points, leads to structures that are intriguingly close to the ones implied by modular invariance for conformal field theories on closed orientable surfaces. CERN-TH/97-215 August 1997
Timoshenko beam with uncertainty on the boundary conditions
Thiago G. RittoI; Rubens SampaioII; Edson CataldoIII
Ithiagoritto@gmail.comIIEmeritus Member, ABCM, firstname.lastname@example.org, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro – PUC-Rio, Mechanical Engineering Department, 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil IIIecataldo@im.uff.br, Fluminense Federal University – UFF, Applied Mathematics Department, Graduate Program in Telecommunications Engineering, 24020-140 Niterói, RJ, Brazil
In mechanical system modeling, uncertainties are present and, to improve the predictability of the models, they should be taken into account. This work discusses uncertainties present in boundary conditions using the model of a vibrating Timoshenko beam, free in one end and pinned with rotation constrained by a linear elastic torsional spring in the other end. The Finite Element Method is used to discretize the system and two probabilistic approaches are considered to model the uncertainties: (1) the stiffness of the torsional spring is taken as uncertain and a random variable is associated to it (parametric probabilistic approach); (2) the whole stiffness matrix is considered as uncertain and a probabilistic model is constructed for the associated random matrix (nonparametric probabilistic approach). In both approaches, the probability density functions are deduced from the Maximum Entropy Principle. In the first approach only the uncertainty of a parameter is taken into account, and in the second approach, the uncertainties of the model are taken into account, globally. Both approaches are compared and their capability to improve the predictability of the system response is discussed.
“every living thing can become healthy, strong and fruitful only within a horizon; if it is incapable ofdrawing a horizon around itself or, on the other hand, too selfish torestrict its vision to the limits of a horizon drawn by another, it will witheraway feebly or overhastily to its early demise. Cheerfulness, clear conscience,the carefree deed, faith in the future, all this depends in the case of an individual as well as of a people, on there being a line which distinguishes what is clear and in full view from the dark and unilluminable; it depends on one’s being able to forget at the right time aswell as to remember at the right time; on discerning with strong instinctualfeelings when there is need to experience historically and when unhistorically.Precisely this is the proposition the reader is invited to consider:the unhistorical and the historical are equally necessary for the health ofan individual, a people and a culture. “Friedrich Nietzsche: 1844-1900
“The whole question, therefore, respecting not only theadvantage, but even the quantity, of national wealth, resolvesitself finally into one of abstract justice. It is impossible toconclude, of any given mass of acquired wealth, merely by thefact of its existence, whether it signifies good or evil to thenation in the midst of which it exists. Its real value depends onthe moral sign attached to it, just as sternly as that of amathematical quantity depends on the algebraical sign attached toit. Any given accumulation of commercial wealth may beindicative, on the one hand, of faithful industries, progressiveenergies, and productive ingenuities: or, on the other, it may beindicative of mortal luxury, merciless tyranny, ruinous chicane.Some treasures are heavy with human tears, as an ill-storedharvest with untimely rain; and some gold is brighter in sunshinethan it is in substance.”
The Cult of Personality, The Cult of the Corporation. The Cult of Brands.
If Mac Donalds was a worker´s cooperative how would that transfer Global Brand.
when the discourse is reduced to a binary raspberry contest the Establishment’s budget will always end up blowing the biggest Raspberry. Social Media is very powerful but also very fragmented outside of the Monopolised entry points. The folk caught up at the turnstiles will not drill down into any meaningful discourse and the web has been tied up very well that way with the rise of Google and Facebook. Subsets of the two do allow for communities of serious discussion to emerge but the shell game there is to stop the communities from joining up their discourse and leveraging their smaller Audiences. Audience leverage is a question of appealing to a crossover style of argumentation. One should give both sides or the story an authentically given right of reply to all the arguments from the different sides of the story. Ultimately it is condescending and counterproductive to seek to tell any reader or consumer of information or entertainment what they should make of it.
See If Truth was subject to a patent law Blog post.
by Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates’ Union of Belgium, via Defend Democracy
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress, of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic ideology.
Who believes silly Propaganda. And Why belief is not the point.
Chief among the common misconceptions about the way official propaganda works is the notion that its goal is to deceive the public into believing things that are not “the truth” (that Trump is a Russian agent, for example, or that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, et cetera). However, while official propagandists are definitely pleased if anyone actually believes whatever lies they are selling, deception is not their primary aim.
The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an “official narrative” that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between “the truth” as defined by the ruling classes and any other “truth” that contradicts their narrative.
Note: Why I use the term Political Correctness, instead of Liberalism or Socialism?
The reasons include:
1. The confusion over what ‘liberalism’ means – to some a free marketeer, to others a socialist. My definition of political correctness is broad and includes most mainstream conservatives, libertarians and anarchists; who are nowadays all significantly PC.
2. Differences in usage between the UK and US: in the UK the Liberals are a strange mixture of business- and farming-friendly Centrists with pacifist Leftists of an upper middle class type; in the US Liberals are the furthest Left of mainstream political ideologies.
3. That although PC clearly evolved from (what is in the US) called liberalism, PC is the outcome of a distinctive ‘turn’ in Leftist politics, which became obvious in the mid-1960s. In its striking, explicit, surface features PC is something new under the sun, never before seen in history.
4. Leftist political groups have, over the years, called themselves Communist, Socialist, Social Democrat, Liberal Democrat, Democrat and various other names – but none of these have become dominant, and none are fully inclusive of Leftism.
5. The dawning realization that the phenomena collected together under the jokey term ‘political correctness’ was a vastly more robust and malignant thing than I had ever imagined.
So that what seemed either silly or trivial or both, will end by destroying that modernity which made PC possible in the first place.
Yet we can perceive now, in advance of all this, that even when PC is utterly swept-away it will be blind to what has happened, and to what it had done. PC will always see itself as being on the side of the angels, whatever its outcome may be.
It is a truly amazing thing, this political correctness; something so paltry, so puny, so soft – yet wreaking such devastation while rendering the devastation imperceptible.
It seemed, therefore, worth discussing under its new name, as a phenomenon not truly new at its deepest level – but new in its combination of idealistic, delusional subjectivism with deadly, plodding bureaucracy.
What is political correctness? A thought prison: a self-constructed jail of delusions; yet a prison engaged in destroying-itself: guards and inmates together.
In this groundbreaking study, Bruce Charlton sheds brilliant light on fundamental features of our current situation. He develops Marshall McLuhan’s insight that “the medium is the message” into a deeply illuminating account of the mass media as a self-sustaining techno-cultural system that absorbs the whole of human life into a virtual world of willfulness and unreality. Like Plato in his Myth of the Cave, he calls for each of us to turn away from flickering images and toward realities. We need to heed that call. —James Kalb: author of The Tyranny of Liberalism and Against Inclusiveness
Addicted to Distraction by Bruce G Charlton is a brilliant, pithy, and incisive analysis and condemnation of the modern mass media and its semipurposeful agenda of permanent revolution, permanent hysteria, and permanent chaos. His comments are as cutting as the scalpel of a surgeon performing an autopsy, and his insights a bright and clear as the merciless lights in an operating theater. Can a fish drown? Can it even notice the waters in which it lives and moves? No more than can we notice the totalitarian relativism of the modern mass media. The Mass Media is a roaring, grinding attention-grabbing machine which operates with no set purpose; except the purpose to subvert, uncreate, mock and destroy. It does not matter what the media destroys. Pointless subversion is the point of the media, and the medium is the message. By all means read and understand this book … and then go out by yourself into the calm and silent wilderness for a year. —John C Wright, author and Nebula Award finalist
”The reader of Pope, as of every author, is advised to begin by letting him say what he has to say, in his own manner to an open mind that seeks only to receive the impressions which the writer wishes to convey. First let the mind and spirit of the writer come into free, full contact with the mind and spirit of the reader, whose attitude at the first reading should be simply receptive. Such reading is the condition precedent to all true judgment of a writer’s work. All criticism that is not so grounded spreads as fog over a poet’s page. Read, reader, for yourself, without once pausing to remember what you have been told to think´´. Henry Morley.
A game theoretic approach to the theory of money and financial institutions
In: Handbook of Monetary Economics
”The monetary and financial system of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society. This neural network provides the administrative means to collect taxes, direct investment, provide public goods, trade. The money measures provide a crude but serviceable basis for the accounting system which in turn, along with the codification of commercial law and financial regulation are the basis for economic evaluation and the measurement of trust and fiduciary responsibility among the economic agents. A central feature of a control mechanism is that it is designed to influence process. Dynamics is its natural domain. Equilibrium is not the prime concern, the ability to control the direction of motion is what counts.
Money and financial institutions provide the command and control system of a modern society. The study of the mechanism, how they are formed, how they are controlled and manipulated and how their influence is measured in terms of social, political, and economic purpose pose questions not in pure economics, not even in a narrow political economy, but in the broad compass of a political economy set in the context of society. ”
When I had written about seven-tenths of the first volume, I was prevailed upon by the extreme importunity of an old and intimate friend to allow him the perusal of my manuscript. On the second day he returned it with a note to this purpose: “I return you your manuscript, because I promised to do so. If I had obeyed the impulse of my own mind, I should have thrust it in the fire. If you persist, the book will infallibly prove the grave of your literary fame.”
Thus I have endeavoured to give a true history of the concoction and mode of writing of this mighty trifle. When I had done, I soon became sensible that I had done in a manner nothing. How many flat and insipid parts does the book contain! How terribly unequal does it appear to me! From time to time the author plainly reels to and fro like a drunken man. And, when I had done all, what had I done? Written a book to amuse boys and girls in their vacant hours, a story to be hastily gobbled up by them, swallowed in a pusillanimous and unanimated mood, without chewing and digestion. I was in this respect greatly impressed with the confession of one of the most accomplished readers and excellent critics that any author could have fallen in with (the unfortunate Joseph Gerald). He told me that he had received my book late one evening, and had read through the three volumes before he closed his eyes. Thus, what had cost me twelve months’ labour, ceaseless heartaches and industry, now sinking in despair, and now roused and sustained in unusual energy, he went over in a few hours, shut the book, laid himself on his pillow, slept, and was refreshed, and cried,
It is very rare indeed for men to be wrong in their feelings concerning public misconduct; as rare to be right in their speculation upon the cause of it. I have constantly observed that the generality of people are fifty years, at least, behindhand in their politics. There are but very few who are capable of comparing and digesting what passes before their eyes at different times and occasions, so as to form the whole into a distinct system. But in books everything is settled for them, without the exertion of any considerable diligence or sagacity. For which reason men are wise with but little reflection, and good with little self-denial, in the business of all times except their own. We are very uncorrupt and tolerably enlightened judges of the transactions of past ages; where no passions deceive, and where the whole train of circumstances, from the trifling cause to the tragical event, is set in an orderly series before us. Few are the partisans of departed tyranny; and to be a Whig on the business of a hundred years ago is very consistent with every advantage of present servility. This retrospective wisdom and historical patriotism are things of wonderful convenience, and serve admirably to reconcile the old quarrel between speculation and practice. Many a stern republican, after gorging himself with a full feast of admiration of the Grecian commonwealths and of our true Saxon constitution, and discharging all the splendid bile of his virtuous indignation on King John and King James, sits down perfectly satisfied to the coarsest work and homeliest job of the day he lives in. I believe there was no professed admirer of Henry the Eighth among the instruments of the last King James; nor in the court of Henry the Eighth was there, I dare say, to be found a single advocate for the favourites of Richard the Second.
Introductory Remarks. [ON METHOD] THERE are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions to be met within a literary work.
The first cause arises from the fact that the author collects the opinions of various men, each differing from the other, but neglects to mention the name of the author of any particular opinion. In such a work contradictions or inconsistencies must occur, since any two statements may belong to two different authors.
Second cause: The author holds at first one opinion which he subsequently rejects: in his work., however, both his original and altered views are retained.
Third cause: The passages in question are not all to be taken literally: some only are to be understood in their literal sense, while in others figurative language is employed, which includes another meaning besides the literal one: or, in the apparently inconsistent passages, figurative language is employed which, if taken literally, would seem to be contradictories or contraries.
Fourth cause: The premises are not identical in both statements, but for certain reasons they are not fully stated in these passages: or two propositions with different subjects which are expressed by the same term without having the difference in meaning pointed out, occur in two passages. The contradiction is therefore only apparent, but there is no contradiction in reality.
The fifth cause is traceable to the use of a certain method adopted in teaching and expounding profound problems. Namely, a difficult and obscure theorem must sometimes be mentioned and assumed as known, for the illustration of some elementary and intelligible subject which must be taught beforehand the commencement being always made with the easier thing. The teacher must therefore facilitate, in any manner which he can devise, the explanation of those theorems, which have to be assumed as known, and he must content himself with giving a general though somewhat inaccurate notion on the subject. It is, for the present, explained according to the capacity of the students, that they may comprehend it as far as they are required to understand the subject. Later on, the same subject is thoroughly treated and fully developed in its right place.
Sixth cause: The contradiction is not apparent, and only becomes evident through a series of premises. The larger the number of premises necessary to prove the contradiction between the two conclusions, the greater is the chance that it will escape detection, and that the author will not perceive his own inconsistency. Only when from each conclusion, by means of suitable premises, an inference is made, and from the enunciation thus inferred, by means of proper arguments, other conclusions are formed, and after that process has been repeated many times, then it becomes clear that the original conclusions are contradictories or contraries. Even able writers are liable to overlook such inconsistencies. If, however, the contradiction between the original statements can at once be discovered, and the author, while writing the second, does not think of the first, he evinces a greater deficiency, and his words deserve no notice whatever.
Seventh cause: It is sometimes necessary to introduce such metaphysical matter as may partly be disclosed, but must partly be concealed: while, therefore, on one occasion the object which the author has in view may demand that the metaphysical problem be treated as solved in one way, it may be convenient on another occasion to treat it as solved in the opposite way. The author must endeavour, by concealing the fact as much as possible, to prevent the uneducated reader from perceiving the contradiction.
Common Sense, Thomas Paine
BLAKE BELIEVED THAT PAINE’S “ENERGETIC GENIUS” LED HIM TO PERFORM MIRACLES ( MEMORY HOLE BLOG) #CORBYN4PM #STEPFORDTRUMP #STEPFORDMACRON #STEPFORDMAY #STEPFORDDEMOCRACY #99%
If the things which are said by the philosophers about the kinship between God and man are true, what else remains for men to do than what Socrates did, namely, never reply to the question: “to what country you belong” to say that you are an Athenian or a Corinthian, but that you are a citizen of the world. For why do you say that you are an Athenian, and why do you not say that you belong to the small nook only into which your poor body was cast at birth? Is it not plain that you call yourself an Athenian or Corinthian from the place which has a greater authority and comprises not only that small nook itself and all your family, but even the whole country from which the stock of your progenitors is derived down to you?
He then who has observed with intelligence the administration of the world, and has learned that the greatest and supreme and the most comprehensive community is that which is composed of men and God, and that from God have descended the seeds not only to my father and grandfather, but to all beings which are generated on the earth and are produced, and particularly to rational beings – for these only are by their nature formed to have communion with God, being by means of reason conjoined with Him – why should not such a man call himself a citizen of the world, why not a son of God, and why should he be afraid of anything which happens among men?
discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are
merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them
The technologist examines our so-called standard of measurement, the monetary unit-the
dollar. He notes that it is a variable. Why anyone should attempt, on this earth, to use a
variable as a measuring rod is so utterly absurd that he dismisses any serious
consideration of its use in his study of what should be done.
He also considers ‘price’ and ‘value’ and the fine- spun theories of philosophers and
economists who have attempted to surround these terms with the semblance of meaning.
These terms, like the monetary unit, may have had meaning to men in the past but they
mean nothing whatsoever to the modern technologist. The standard of measurement is
not relevant to the things measured; and the measuring rod and the things, measured as if
they were stable, are all variables. We read thousands of newspaper captions such as
this: ‘FARM VALUE CUT BY SLUMP TO 45 BILLIONS. PRESENT WORTH
COMPARES WITH 79 BILLION AT WAR’S END-OFF 15 PERCENT IN YEAR’
(1931) – And then we read that farm income has fallen from $16,900,000,000 in 1919 to
$6,900,000,000 in 1931. It is, of course, quite possible to rationalize this in terms of the
functions of the Price System; but after it has been rationalized it still remains to the
technologist nothing more nor less than an item of nonsense. He simply refuses to think
of that item of our technological equipment as waving up and down like that. It doesn’t.
Fascism, that strange but natural partnership of the Italian political state and vested
interests, is a process of consolidating all the minor rackets into one major monopoly.
Such a condition brought with it the sequelae of discipline and sanitation that necessarily
accompany complete trustification. Italy, which is insufficiently supplied with energy
and mineral resources, which possesses only a limited amount of water power and
volcanic heat, which has some mercury and sulphur but no coal, oil, or gas, no iron ore,
copper, tin, lead, or zinc, and which lacks a high enough percentage of arable land to
grow sufficient foodstuffs for its own needs — Italy belongs to the geologic order of
areas that cannot create and operate an industrial energy civilization. Fascist Italy is
rapidly increasing its dangerous overload of population by granting national bonuses to
large families in furtherance of its mare nostrum policy. Fascism is an attempt at a last-
ditch defense of a Price System, an effort to maintain an unbroken front against
oncoming social change; but this unbroken front is spurious in that it is being
temporarily maintained by foreign importation of energy resource materials,
supplemented by the manna of the Lord.
Good Diagnosis and poor prescription as an analogy.
Do not displease these foolish men of Greece;
In this world there is no perfect wisdom;
All men are mad, and in spite of all their care,
Different between them only more or less.
“An good analogy is better than gold, yea than much fine gold”Paraphrase of Proverbs
An analogy is like a car. If you take it too far, it breaks down.
As with any medical intervention, an analogy can cause harm. Analogies, especially if misused, can mislead the patient. Use clinical judgment. None of the analogies here come with a warrantee, but they are returnable. Some are great, some are a little lame, but they should spur your creativity.
Great Political Underdogs?
EXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE
Madness of Crowds.
BOOK I.;THE ALCHYMISTS; or, Searchers for the Philosopher’s Stone and the Water of Life
PART I.—History of Alchymy from the earliest periods to the Fifteenth Century.—Pretended Antiquity of the Art.—Geber.—Alfarabi.—Avicenna.—Albertus Magnus.—Thomas Aquinas.—Artephius.—Alain de Lisle.—Arnold de Villeneuve.—Pietro d’Apone.—Raymond Lulli.—Roger Bacon.—Pope John XXII.—Jean de Meung.—Nicholas Flamel.—George Ripley.—Basil Valentine.—Bernard of Treves.—Trithemius.—The Marechal de Rays.—Jacques Coeur.—Inferior Adepts.
PART II.—Progress of the Infatuation during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.—Augurello.—Cornelius Agrippa.—Paracelsus.—George Agricola.—Denys Zachaire.—Dr. Dee and Edward Kelly.—The Cosmopolite.—Sendivogius.—The Rosicrucians.—Michael Mayer.—Robert Fludd.—Jacob Bohmen.—John Heydn.—Joseph Francis Borri.—Alchymical Writers of the Seventeenth Century.—De Lisle.—Albert Aluys.—Count de St. Germains.—Cagliostro.—Present State of the Science.
N’en deplaise a ces fous nommes sages de Grece;
En ce monde il n’est point de parfaite sagesse;
Tous les hommes sont fous, et malgre tous leurs soins,
Ne different entre eux que du plus ou du moins.
Do not displease these foolish men of Greece;
In this world there is no perfect wisdom;
All men are mad, and in spite of all their care,
Different between them only more or less.
In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. We see one nation suddenly seized, from its highest to its lowest members, with a fierce desire of military glory; another as suddenly becoming crazed upon a religious scruple, and neither of them recovering its senses until it has shed rivers of blood and sowed a harvest of groans and tears, to be reaped by its posterity. At an early age in the annals of Europe its population lost their wits about the Sepulchre of Jesus, and crowded in frenzied multitudes to the Holy Land: another age went mad for fear of the Devil, and offered up hundreds of thousands of victims to the delusion of witchcraft. At another time, the many became crazed on the subject of the Philosopher’s Stone, and committed follies till then unheard of in the pursuit. It was once thought a venial offence in very many countries of Europe to destroy an enemy by slow poison. Persons who would have revolted at the idea of stabbing a man to the heart, drugged his pottage without scruple. Ladies of gentle birth and manners caught the contagion of murder, until poisoning, under their auspices, became quite fashionable. Some delusions, though notorious to all the world, have subsisted for ages, flourishing as widely among civilized and polished nations as among the early barbarians with whom they originated,—that of duelling, for instance, and the belief in omens and divination of the future, which seem to defy the progress of knowledge to eradicate entirely from the popular mind. Money, again, has often been a cause of the delusion of multitudes. Sober nations have all at once become desperate gamblers, and risked almost their existence upon the turn of a piece of paper. To trace the history of the most prominent of these delusions is the object of the present pages. Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
In the present state of civilization, society has often shown itself very prone to run a career of folly from the last-mentioned cases. This infatuation has seized upon whole nations in a most extraordinary manner. France, with her Mississippi madness, set the first great example, and was very soon imitated by England with her South Sea Bubble. At an earlier period, Holland made herself still more ridiculous in the eyes of the world, by the frenzy which came over her people for the love of Tulips. Melancholy as all these delusions were in their ultimate results, their history is most amusing. A more ludicrous and yet painful spectacle, than that which Holland presented in the years 1635 and 1636, or France in 1719 and 1720, can hardly be imagined. Taking them in the order of their importance, we shall commence our history with John Law and the famous Mississippi scheme of the years above mentioned.
THE MISSISSIPPI SCHEME
Some in clandestine companies combine;
Erect new stocks to trade beyond the line;
With air and empty names beguile the town,
And raise new credits first, then cry ’em down;
Divide the empty nothing into shares,
And set the crowd together by the ears.
Anti Semetism, Islamaphobia, Radical Atheism, Holocaust Research / Climate Denial / Nationalism / Populism/ Mental FacultiesTaboos?Subversion/ Rules for Radicals. Jewish Paedophilia Cannard.
Nolte is best known for his role in launching the Historikerstreit (“Historians’ Dispute”) of 1986 and 1987. On 6 June 1986 Nolte published a feuilleton opinion piece entitled Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will: Eine Rede, die geschrieben, aber nicht mehr gehalten werden konnte (“The Past That Will Not Pass: A Speech That Could Be Written but Not Delivered“) in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. His feuilleton was a distillation of ideas he had first introduced in lectures delivered in 1976 and in 1980. Earlier in 1986, Nolte had planned to deliver a speech before the Frankfurt Römerberg Conversations (an annual gathering of intellectuals), but he had claimed that the organizers of the event withdrew their invitation. In response, an editor and co-publisher of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Joachim Fest, allowed Nolte to have his speech printed as a feuilleton in his newspaper. One of Nolte’s leading critics, British historian Richard J. Evans, claims that the organizers of the Römerberg Conversations did not withdraw their invitation, and that Nolte had just refused to attend.
Nolte began his feuilleton by remarking that it was necessary in his opinion to draw a “line under the German past”. Nolte argued that the memory of the Nazi era was “a bugaboo, as a past that in the process of establishing itself in the present or that is suspended above the present like an executioner’s sword”. Nolte complained that excessive present-day interest in the Nazi period had the effect of drawing “attention away from the pressing questions of the present—for example, the question of “unborn life” or the presence of genocide yesterday in Vietnam and today in Afghanistan“.
The crux of Nolte’s thesis was presented when he wrote:
“It is a notable shortcoming of the literature about National Socialism that it does not know or does not want to admit to what degree all the deeds—with the sole exception of the technical process of gassing—that the National Socialists later committed had already been described in a voluminous literature of the early 1920s: mass deportations and shootings, torture, death camps, extermination of entire groups using strictly objective selection criteria, and public demands for the annihilation of millions of guiltless people who were thought to be “enemies”.
It is probable that many of these reports were exaggerated. It is certain that the “White Terror” also committed terrible deeds, even though its program contained no analogy to the “extermination of the bourgeoisie”. Nonetheless, the following question must seem permissible, even unavoidable: Did the National Socialists or Hitler perhaps commit an “Asiatic” deed merely because they and their ilk considered themselves to be the potential victims of an “Asiatic” deed? Wasn’t the ‘Gulag Archipelago‘ more original than Auschwitz? Was the Bolshevik murder of an entire class not the logical and factual prius of the “racial murder” of National Socialism? Cannot Hitler’s most secret deeds be explained by the fact that he had not forgotten the rat cage? Did Auschwitz in its root causes not originate in a past that would not pass?
Soviet slave labour at the construction of White Sea-Baltic Canal, 1931–33. The Original Auschwitz? According to Nolte, the Soviet Gulag camps were Vorbild (the terrifying example that inspired the Nazis) and Schreckbild (the terror model for the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis)
Nolte called the Auschwitz death camp and the other German death camps of World War II a “copy” of the Soviet Gulag camps.
In addition, Nolte sees his work as the beginning of a much-needed revisionist treatment to end the “negative myth” of the Third Reich that dominates contemporary perceptions. Nolte took the view that the principal problem of German history was this “negative myth” of the Third Reich, which cast the Nazi era as the ne plus ultra of evil.
Nolte contends that the great decisive event of the 20th century was the Russian Revolution of 1917, which plunged all of Europe into a long-simmering civil war that lasted until 1945. To Nolte, fascism, communism’s twin, arose as a desperate response by the threatened middle classes of Europe to what Nolte has often called the “Bolshevik peril”. He suggests that if one wishes to understand the Holocaust, one should begin with the Industrial Revolution in Britain, and then understand the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
In his 1987 book Der europäische Bürgerkrieg, 1917–1945, Nolte argued in the interwar period, Germany was Europe’s best hope for progress. Nolte wrote that “if Europe was to succeed in establishing itself as a world power on an equal footing [with the United States and the Soviet Union], then Germany had to be the core of the new ‘United States'”. Nolte claimed if Germany had to continue to abide by Part V of the Treaty of Versailles, which had disarmed Germany, then Germany would have been destroyed by aggression from her neighbors sometime later in the 1930s, and with Germany’s destruction, there would have been no hope for a “United States of Europe”. The British historian Richard J. Evans accused Nolte of engaging in a geopolitical fantasy.
These views ignited a firestorm of controversy. Most historians in West Germany and virtually all historians outside Germany condemned Nolte’s interpretation as factually incorrect, and as coming dangerously close to justifying the Holocaust. Many historians, such as Steven T. Katz, claimed that Nolte’s “Age of Genocide” concept “trivialized” the Holocaust by reducing it to one of just many 20th century genocides. A common line of criticism was that Nazi crimes, above all the Holocaust, were singular and unique in their nature, and should not be loosely analogized to the crimes of others. Some historians such as Hans-Ulrich Wehler were most forceful in arguing that the sufferings of the “kulaks” deported during the Soviet “dekulakization” campaign of the early 1930s were in no way analogous to the suffering of the Jews deported in the early 1940s. Many were angered by Nolte’s claim that “the so-called annihilation of the Jews under the Third Reich was a reaction or a distorted copy and not a first act or an original”, with many wondering why Nolte spoke of the “so-called annihilation of the Jews” in describing the Holocaust. Some of the historians who denounced Nolte’s views included Hans Mommsen, Jürgen Kocka, Detlev Peukert, Martin Broszat, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Michael Wolffsohn, Heinrich August Winkler, Wolfgang Mommsen, Karl Dietrich Bracher and Eberhard Jäckel. Much (though not all) of the criticism of Nolte came from historians who favored either the Sonderweg (Special Way) and/or intentionalist/functionalist interpretations of German history.
Coming to Nolte’s defence were the journalist Joachim Fest, the philosopher Helmut Fleischer, and the historians’ Klaus Hildebrand, Rainer Zitelmann, Hagen Schulze, Thomas Nipperdey and Imanuel Geiss. The last was unusual amongst Nolte’s defenders as Geiss was normally identified with the left, while the rest of Nolte’s supporters were seen as either on the right or holding centrist views. In response to Wehler’s book, Geiss later published a book entitled Der Hysterikerstreit. Ein unpolemischer Essay (The Hysterical Dispute: An Unpolemical Essay) in which he largely defended Nolte against Wehler’s criticisms. Geiss wrote Nolte’s critics had “taken in isolation” his statements and were guilty of being “hasty readers”
In particular, controversy centered on an argument of Nolte’s 1985 essay “Between Myth and Revisionism” from the book Aspects of the Third Reich, first published in German as “Die negative Lebendigkeit des Dritten Reiches” (“The Negative Vitality of the Third Reich”) as an opinion piece in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 24 July 1980, but which did not attract widespread attention until 1986 when Jürgen Habermas criticized the essay in a feuilleton piece. Nolte had delivered a lecture at the Siemens-Stiftung in 1980, and excerpts from his speech were published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung without attracting controversy. In his essay, Nolte argued that if the PLO were to destroy Israel, then the subsequent history written in the new Palestinian state would portray the former Israeli state in the blackest of colors with no references to any of the positive features of the defunct state. In Nolte’s opinion, a similar situation of history written only by the victors exists in regards to the history of Nazi Germany. Many historians, such as British historian Richard J. Evans, have asserted that, based on this statement, Nolte appears to believe that the only reason why Nazism is regarded as evil is because Germany lost World War II, with no regard for the Holocaust. In a review which appeared in the Historische Zeitschrift journal on 2 April 1986 Klaus Hildebrand called Nolte’s essay “Between Myth and Revisionism” “trailblazing”. In the same review Hildebrand argued Nolte had in a praiseworthy way sought:
“to incorporate in historicizing fashion that central element for the history of National Socialism and of the “Third Reich” of the annihilatory capacity of the ideology and of the regime, and to comprehend this totalitarian reality in the interrelated context of Russian and German history”.
The philosopher Jürgen Habermas in an article in the Die Zeit of 11 July 1986 strongly criticized Nolte, along with Andreas Hillgruber and Michael Stürmer, for engaging in what Habermas called “apologetic” history writing in regards to the Nazi era, and for seeking to “close Germany’s opening to the West” that in Habermas’s view has existed since 1945.
In particular, Habermas took Nolte to task for suggesting a moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the Khmer Rouge genocide. In Habermas’s opinion, since Cambodia was a backward, Third World agrarian state and Germany a modern, industrial state, there was no comparison between the two genocides.
In response to Habermas’s essay, Klaus Hildebrand came to Nolte’s defence. In an essay entitled “The Age of Tyrants”, first published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on July 31, 1986, he went on to praise Nolte for daring to open up new questions for research.
Nolte, for his part, started to write a series of letters to newspapers such as Die Zeit and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung attacking his critics; for example, in a letter to Die Zeit on 1 August 1986, Nolte complained that his critic Jürgen Habermas was attempting to censor him for expressing his views, and accused Habermas of being the person responsible for blocking him from attending the Römerberg Conversations. In the same letter, Nolte described himself as the unnamed historian whose views on the reasons for the Holocaust had caused Saul Friedländer to walk out in disgust from a dinner party hosted by Nolte in Berlin in February or March 1986 that Habermas had alluded to an earlier letter
Responding to the essay “The Age of Tyrants: History and Politics” by Klaus Hildebrand that defended Nolte, Habermas wrote:
“In his essay Ernst Nolte discusses the “so-called” annihilation of the Jews (in H.W. Koch, ed. Aspects of the Third Reich, London, 1985). Chaim Weizmann’s declaration in the beginning of September 1939 that the Jews of the world would fight on the side of Britain, “justified” – so opined Nolte – Hitler to treat the Jews as prisoners of war and intern them. Other objections aside, I cannot distinguish between the insinuation that world Jewry is a subject of international law and the usual anti-Semitic projections. And if it had at least stopped with deportation. All this does not stop Klaus Hildebrand in the Historische Zeitschrift from commending Nolte’s “pioneering essay”, because it “attempts to project exactly the seemingly unique aspects of the history of the Third Reich onto the backdrop of the European and global development”. Hildebrand is pleased that Nolte denies the singularity of the Nazi atrocities”.
In an essay entitled “Encumbered Remembrance”, first published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on August 29, 1986, Fest claimed that Nolte’s argument that Nazi crimes were not singular was correct. Fest accused Habermas of “academic dyslexia” and “character assassination” in his attacks on Nolte.
Skulls of Khmer Rouge victims. Joachim Fest defended Nolte by arguing that Habermas was a racist for arguing that it was natural for Cambodians to practice genocide and unnatural for Germans.
In a letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published on September 6, 1986 Karl Dietrich Bracher accused both Habermas and Nolte of both “…tabooing the concept of totalitarianism and inflating the formula of fascism”.
The historian Eberhard Jäckel, in an essay first published in the Die Zeit newspaper on September 12, 1986, argued that Nolte’s theory was ahistorical on the grounds that Hitler held the Soviet Union in contempt and could not have felt threatened as Nolte claimed. Jäckel later described Nolte’s methods as a “game of confusion”, comprising dressing hypotheses up as questions and then attacking critics demanding evidence for his assertions as seeking to block one from asking questions.
The philosopher Helmut Fleischer, in an essay first published in the Nürnberger Zeitung newspaper on September 20, 1986, defended Nolte against Habermas on the grounds that Nolte was only seeking to place the Holocaust into a wider political context of the time. Fleischer accused Habermas of seeking to impose on Germans a left-wing moral understanding of the Nazi period and of creating a “moral” Sondergericht (Special Court). Fleischer argued that Nolte was only seeking the “historicization” of National Socialism that Martin Broszat had called for in a 1985 essay by trying to understand what caused National Socialism, with a special focus on the fear of communism.
In an essay first published in Die Zeit on September 26, 1986, the historian Jürgen Kocka argued against Nolte that the Holocaust was indeed a “singular” event because it had been committed by an advanced Western nation, and argued that Nolte’s comparisons of the Holocaust with similar mass killings in Pol Pot‘s Cambodia, Joseph Stalin‘s Soviet Union, and Idi Amin‘s Uganda were invalid because of the backward nature of those societies.
Hagen Schulze, in an essay first published in Die Zeit on September 26, 1986, defended Nolte, together with Andreas Hillgruber, and argued that Habermas was acting from “incorrect presuppositions” in attacking Nolte and Hillgruber for denying the “singularity” of the Holocaust. Schulze argued that Habermas’s attack on Nolte was flawed because he failed to provide any proof that the Holocaust was unique, and argued there were many “aspects” of the Holocaust that were “common” to other historical events.
In an essay first published in the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper on November 14, 1986, Heinrich August Winkler wrote of Nolte’s essay “The Past That Will Not Pass”:
“Those who read the Frankfurter Allgemeine all the way through to the culture section were able to read something under the title “The Past That Will Not Pass” that no German historian to date had noticed: that Auschwitz was only a copy of a Russian original – the Stalinist Gulag Archipelago. From a fear of the Bolsheviks’ Asiatic will to annihilate, Hitler himself committed an “Asiatic deed”. Was the annihilation of the Jews a kind of putative self-defence? That is what Nolte’s speculation amounts to.”
The political scientist Kurt Sontheimer, in an essay first published in the Rheinischer Merkur newspaper on November 21, 1986, accused Nolte and his supporters of attempting to create a new “national consciousness” intended to sever the Federal Republic’s “intellectual and spiritual ties with the West”.
The German political scientist Richard Löwenthal noted that news of the Soviet kulak expulsions and the Holodomor did not reach Germany until 1941, so that Soviet atrocities could not possibly have influenced the Germans as Nolte claimed. In a letter to the editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on November 29, 1986, Löwenthal argued the case for a “fundamental difference” in mass murder between Germany and the Soviet Union, and against the “equalizing” of various crimes in the 20th century.
The German historian Horst Möller, in an essay first published in late 1986 in the Beiträge zur Konfliktforschung magazine, argued that Nolte was not attempting to “excuse” Nazi crimes by comparing them with the crimes of others, but was instead trying to explain Nazi war-crimes. Möller argued that Nolte was only attempting to explain “irrational” events rationally, and that the Nazis really did believe that they were confronted with a world Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy out to destroy Germany.
In an essay entitled “The Nazi Reign – A Case of Normal Tyranny?”, first published in Die neue Gesellschaft magazine in late 1986, the political scientist Walter Euchner wrote that Nolte was wrong when he wrote of Hitler’s alleged terror of the Austrian Social Democratic Party parades before 1914, arguing that Social Democratic parties in both Germany and Austria were fundamentally humane and pacifistic, instead of the terrorist-revolutionary entities Nolte alleged them to be.
Another area of controversy was Nolte’s 1987 book Der europäische Bürgerkrieg (The European Civil War) and some accompanying statements, by which Nolte appeared to flirt with Holocaust denial as a serious historical argument. In a letter to Otto Dov Kulka of 8 December 1986 Nolte criticized the work of French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson on the ground that the Holocaust did in fact occur, but he went on to argue that Faurisson’s work had admirable motives in the form of sympathy for Palestinians and opposition to Israel. In Der europäische Bürgerkrieg, Nolte claimed that the intentions of Holocaust deniers are “often honorable”, and that some of their claims are “not evidently without foundation”. Kershaw has argued that Nolte was operating on the borderlines of Holocaust denial with his implied claim that the “negative myth” of the Third Reich was created by Jewish historians, his allegations of the domination of Holocaust scholarship by Jewish historians, and his statements that one should withhold judgment on Holocaust deniers, who Nolte insists are not exclusively Germans or fascists. In Kershaw’s opinion, Nolte is attempting to imply that Holocaust deniers are perhaps on to something.
In Der europäische Bürgerkrieg, Nolte put forward five different arguments as a way of criticizing the uniqueness of the Shoah thesis. These were as follows:
There were other equally horrible acts of violence in the 20th century. Some of the examples Nolte cited were the Armenian genocide; Soviet deportations of the so-called “traitor nations,” such as the Crimean Tatars and the Volga Germans; British “area bombing” in World War II; and American violence in the Vietnam War.
Nazi genocide was only a copy of Soviet genocide, and thus can in no way be considered unique.
Nolte argued that the vast majority of Germans had no knowledge of the ‘Holocaust while it was happening Nolte claimed that the genocide of the Jews was Hitler’s personal pet project, and that the Holocaust was the work of only a few Germans who were entirely unrepresentative of German society Contradicting the American historian Raul Hilberg, who claimed that hundreds of thousands of Germans were complicit in the Holocaust, from high-ranking bureaucrats to railway clerks and locomotive conductors, Nolte argued that the functional division of labour in modern society meant that most people in Germany had no idea of how they were assisting in genocide. In support of this, Nolte cited the voluminous memoirs of German generals and Nazi leaders, such as Albert Speer, who claimed to have no idea that their country was engaging in genocide during World War II.
Nolte maintained that to a certain degree Nazi anti-Semitic policies were justifiable responses to Jewish actions against Germany, such as Weizmann’s alleged 1939 “declaration of war” on Germany.
Finally, Nolte hinted at the possibility that the Holocaust had never happened at all. Nolte claimed that the Wannsee Conference never took place, and argued that most Holocaust scholarship is flawed because most Holocaust historians are Jewish, and thus “biased” against Germany and in favour of the idea that there was a Holocaust.
The British historian Richard J. Evans criticized Nolte, accusing him of taking too seriously the work of Holocaust deniers, whom Evans called cranks, not historians. Likewise, Evans charged that Nolte was guilty of making assertions unsupported by the evidence, such as claiming that SS massacres of Russian Jews were a form of counterinsurgency, or taking at face value the self-justifying claims of German generals who professed to be ignorant of the Shoah.
Perhaps the most extreme response to Nolte’s thesis occurred on 9 February 1988, when his car was burned by leftist extremists in Berlin. Nolte called the case of arson “terrorism”, and maintained that the attack was inspired by his opponents in the Historikerstreit.
If we can do without much of the original contents of the concept of ‘fascism’, we cannot do without comparison. ‘Historicization’ may easily become a recipe for provincialism. And the moral absolutes of Habermas, however politically and didactically impeccable, also carry a shadow of provincialism, as long as they fail to recognize that fascism was a continental phenomenon, and that Nazism was a peculiar part of something much larger. Pol Pot, the rat torture, and the fate of the Armenians are all extraneous to any serious discussion of Nazism; Mussolini’s Italy is not.
The American historian Charles Maier rejected Nolte’s claims regarding the moral equivalence of the Holocaust and Soviet terror on the grounds that while the latter was extremely brutal, it did not seek the physical annihilation of an entire people as state policy. The American historian Donald McKale blasted both Nolte and Andreas Hillgruber for their statements that the Allied strategic bombing offensives were just as much acts of genocide as the Holocaust, writing that that was just the sort of nonsense one would expect from Nazi apologists like Nolte and Hillgruber.
In a 1987 essay, the Austrian-born Israeli historian Walter Grab accused Nolte of engaging in an “apologia” for Nazi Germany. Grab called Nolte’s claim that Weizmann‘s letter to Chamberlain was a “Jewish declaration of war” that justified the Germans “interning” European Jews a “monstrous thesis” that was not supported by the facts. Grab accused Nolte of ignoring the economic impoverishment and total lack of civil rights that the Jewish community in Germany lived under in 1939. Grab wrote that Nolte “mocks” the Jewish victims of National Socialism with his “absolutely infamous” statement that it was Weizmann with his letter that caused all of the Jewish death and suffering during the Holocaust.
Finally, Nolte’s attempts to establish the comparability of Auschwitz rest in part upon an extension of the concept of ‘genocide’ to actions which cannot plausibly justify being described in this way. However much one might wish to criticize the Allied strategic-bombing offensive against German cities, it cannot be termed genocidal because there was no intention to exterminate the entire German people. Dresden was bombed after Coventry, not the other way around, and it is implausible to suggest that the latter was a response to the former; on the contrary, there was indeed an element of retaliation and revenge in the strategic bombing offensive, which is precisely one of the grounds on which it has often been criticized. There is no evidence to support Nolte’s speculation that the ethnic Germans in Poland would have been entirely exterminated had the Nazis not completed their invasion quickly. Neither the Poles nor the Russians had any intention of exterminating the German people as a whole.
Citing Mein Kampf, Evans argued that Hitler was an anti-Semite long before 1914 and that it was the moderate Left SPD, not the Bolsheviks, whom Hitler regarded as his main enemies
Nolte’s opponents have expressed intense disagreement with his evidence for a Jewish “war” on Germany. They argue that Weizmann’s letter to Chamberlain was written in his capacity as head of the World Zionist Organization, not on behalf of the entire Jewish people of the world, and that Nolte’s views are based on the spurious idea that all Jews comprised a distinct “nationality” who took their marching orders from Jewish organizations.
The ruins of Hamburg after the 1943 firebombing. Nolte called British “area bombing” of Germany a policy of “genocide”
Because of the views that he expressed during the Historikerstreit, Nolte has often been accused of being a Nazi apologist and an anti-Semite. Nolte has always vehemently denied these charges, and has insisted that he is a neo-liberal in his politics. Nolte is by his own admission an intense German nationalist and his stated goal is to restore the Germans’ sense of pride in their history that he feels has been missing since 1945. In a September 1987 interview, Nolte stated that the Germans were “once the master race (Herrenvolk), now they are the “guilty race” (Sündervolk). The one is merely an inversion of the other”. Nolte’s defenders have pointed to numerous statements on his part condemning Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Nolte’s critics have acknowledged these statements, but claim that Nolte’s arguments can be construed as being sympathetic to the Nazis, such as his defence of the Commissar Order as a legitimate military order, his argument that the Einsatzgruppen massacres of Soviet Jews were a reasonable “preventative security” response to partisan attacks, his statements citing Viktor Suvorov that Operation Barbarossa was a “preventive war” forced on Hitler allegedly by an impending Soviet attack, his claim that too much scholarship on the Holocaust has been the work of “biased” Jewish historians, or his use of Nazi-era language such as his practice of referring to Red Army soldiers in World War II as “Asiatic hordes”.
Rudolf originally maintained conventional attitudes towards gas chambers at Auschwitz, but then began to challenge accepted history. In 1991, he began work on a paper entitled Report on the formation and verifiability of cyanide compounds in the Auschwitz “gas chambers“ on behalf of the Düsseldorf attorney Hajo Herrmann, a former Luftwaffe pilot. In 1993, this work was reported in the media, and Rudolf was told not to enter the Max Planck Institute again without permission. When he did so, his employment was terminated without notice. In 1994, this dismissal was converted into a termination by mutual agreement. In 1996, the University of Stuttgart asked Rudolf to withdraw his application for a final PhD examination, or it would be denied, rendering his PhD thesis worthless. The legal basis for this is a German law which allows universities to deny or withdraw academic degrees where the candidate has used his academic credentials or knowledge to commit a crime. Rudolf subsequently withdrew his application.[non-primary source needed]
Between 1991 and 1994, Herrmann and other lawyers used Rudolf’s Auschwitz report to defend several clients, among them Otto Ernst Remer, a former Wehrmacht officer charged with Volksverhetzung (inciting hatred). Rudolf knew his work would be associated with a Holocaust denier, but insisted that even Remer had a right to legal defense. Rudolf stated that his findings at Auschwitz and Birkenau “completely shattered his world view”. Among other things, Rudolf’s report claims that only insignificant traces of cyanide compounds can be found in the samples taken from Auschwitz. However, Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy from The Holocaust History Project have criticized the report, saying that like Fred Leuchter in the Leuchter report, Rudolf did not discriminate against the formation of iron-based cyanide compounds, which are not a reliable indicator of the presence of cyanide, so that his experiment was seriously flawed.
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 6 September 1995, the following members being present:
In its decision, the Court of Justice confirmed the findings ofthe Regional Court that the mass murder of Jews in the gas chamber ofconcentration camps during the Second World War were historicallyproven and therefore common knowledge. The taking of evidence on suchmatters was consequently not necessary. In this respect, the Court ofJustice referred to the constant case-law of the Federal ConstitutionalCourt, its own constant case-law as well as the jurisprudence of the
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ursula Hedwig Meta Wetzel
November 8, 1928 (age 88) Winterscheid in Hesse
A second point raised in my letter to you (and in the article) is the vulgarization of the phrase “genocide,” so extreme as to amount to virtual Holocaust denial, and the reason why I rarely use the term. Take a concrete case: the murder of thousands of men and boys after women and children are allowed to flee if they can get away.
See Montbiot Chomsky Below and Harris / Chomsky
You have to persuade yourself that you absolutely don’t care what happens. If you don’t care, you’ve won. I absolutely promise you, in every serious negotiation, the man or woman who doesn’t care is going to win.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy,
Guthrie Featherstone, QC MP: [after realizing he has missed his bus] I shouldn’t have stood here chattering to you, Rumpole. I must be a complete idiot. Horace Rumpole: [after Featherstone runs for a taxi] Is that a confession we can accept as the truth, my lord?
Horace Rumpole: There is no evidence more unreliable than a confession. Don’t imagine people ever tell the truth about themselves.
QUESTION: So what happens to the moral commitment, the concern for justice in the Jewish state and all that — out the window?CHOMSKY: On the part of whom?QUESTION: The United States.CHOMSKY: There’s no concern for justice and there never was. States don’t have a concern for justice. States don’t act on moral grounds.QUESTION: Except on a rhetorical level.CHOMSKY: On a rhetorical level, they all do, even Nazi Germany. On the actual level, they never do. They are instruments of power and violence, that’s true of all states; they act in the interests of the groups that dominate them, they spout the nice rhetorical line, but these are just givens of the international system.QUESTION: You’ve been very critical of the American liberal community and in fact you’ve said that they’re contributing to Israel’s destruction. Please talk a little bit about that.CHOMSKY: The American liberal community since 1967 has been mobilized at an almost fanatic level in support of an expansionist Israel, and they have been consistently opposed to any political settlement. They have been in favor of the aggrandizement of Israeli power. They have used their position of quite considerable influence in the media in the political system to defeat and overcome any challenge to the system of military confrontation using all the standard techniques of vilification, defamation, closing off control over expression, etc. and it’s certainly had an effect. I don’t know if it was a decisive effect, but it had some noticeable effect on bringing about U.S. government support for the persistent military confrontation and U.S. government opposition to political settlement. For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States. It’s not just the Jewish community, which is what they see; it’s basically the intellectual community at large.
I wrote to Noam Chomsky, a hero of mine, who provided the forward to Herman and Peterson’s book, asking whether he had read it and whether he accepted the accounts it contains of the Rwandan genocide and the massacre of Srebrenica. Watching that brilliant mind engage in high-handed dismissal and distraction has been profoundly depressing. While failing to answer my questions, he accused me of following the Washington script (I have posted our correspondence on my website(13)).John Pilger, who wrote a glowing endorsement of the book, volunteered this response: “Chef Monbiot is a curiously sad figure. All those years of noble green crusading now dashed by his Damascene conversion to nuclear power’s poisonous devastations and his demonstrable need for establishment recognition – a recognition which, ironically, he already enjoyed.”(14) The leftwing magazine Counterpunch cited my article as evidence that I am a member of the “thought police”, and that the role of the Guardian is “to limit the imaginative horizons of readers.”(15)
Poisoned Well Alert!!!!!
Monbiot ( Egotistical ) All about him, Also see interview Owen Jones and Alistair Campbell (Blairs Spin Doctor)Commentators becoming the story, another story?(link provided for the desperately sad or extremely bored or for satirists seeking material)
Your response simply provides a further illustration of my points. You say that you wrote about the extermination of native Americans, citing Stannard. Very glad to know that, but it is completely irrelevant. The issue under discussion is genocide DENIAL – that’s the issue you raised in the first place, and the one discussed in my article. You completely avoid it in your two letters to me and what you published, though it is a prime topic in my article.A second point raised in my letter to you (and in the article) is the vulgarization of the phrase “genocide,” so extreme as to amount to virtual Holocaust denial, and the reason why I rarely use the term. Take a concrete case: the murder of thousands of men and boys after women and children are allowed to flee if they can get away.I’m referring to Fallujah, different from Srebrenica in many ways, among them that in the latter case the women and children were trucked out, and in the former case the destruction and slaughter was so extreme that current studies in medical journals estimate the scale of radiation-related deaths and diseases at beyond the level of Hiroshima. I would not however call it “genocide,” nor would you, and if the word were used, the more extreme apologists for western crimes, like Kamm, would go utterly berserk. Another of many illustrations of the two basic facts.Finally, you also completely misunderstood my reference to the Guardian. I don’t care one way or another that they published an interview that they regarded as so dishonest that they removed it from their website (over my objections, incidentally).
Poisoned Well Alert!!!!!
Harris same as Monbiot All about him Ego.( that’s only my opinion. I personally find Harris deeply annoying in the same degree that I find Niall Ferguson deeply annoying.)YMMV. Your Mileage may vary.
Noam — I reached out to you indirectly through Lawrence Krauss and Johann Hari and was planning to leave it at that, but a reader has now sent me a copy of an email exchange in which you were quite dismissive of the prospect of having a “debate” with me. So I just wanted to clarify that, although I think we might disagree substantially about a few things, I am far more interested in exploring these disagreements, and clarifying any misunderstandings, than in having a conventional debate.
If you’d rather not have a public conversation with me, that’s fine. I can only say that we have many, many readers in common who would like to see us attempt to find some common ground. The fact that you have called me “a religious fanatic” who “worships the religion of the state” makes me think that there are a few misconceptions I could clear up. And many readers insist that I am similarly off-the-mark where your views are concerned.
In any case, my offer stands, if you change your mind.
April 26, 2015
From: Noam Chomsky
To: Sam HarrisPerhaps I have some misconceptions about you. Most of what I’ve read of yours is material that has been sent to me about my alleged views, which is completely false. I don’t see any point in a public debate about misreadings. If there are things you’d like to explore privately, fine. But with sources.
April 26, 2015
From: Sam Harris
To: Noam Chomsky
Thanks for getting back.
Before engaging on this topic, I’d like to encourage you to approach this exchange as though we were planning to publish it. As edifying as it might be to have you correct my misreading of you in private—it would be far better if you did this publicly. It’s not a matter of having a “debate about misreadings”; it’s a matter of allowing our readers to see that conversation on difficult and polarizing topics can occasionally fulfill its ostensible purpose. If I have misread you, and you can show me where I’ve gone wrong, I would want my readers to see my views change in real time. It would be far less desirable for me to simply report that you and I clarified a few things privately, and that I have now changed my mind about X, Y, and Z.
Beyond correcting our misreadings, I think we could have a very interesting conversation about the ethical issues surrounding war, terrorism, the surveillance state, and so forth….
The popular atheist and torture-supporter Sam Harris recently tried to “engineer a public conversation” with radical linguist Noam Chomsky “about the ethics of war, terrorism, state surveillance, and related topics.” Harris shared the exchange publicly, chalking it up as an “unpleasant and fruitless encounter.”
Readers might disagree……
Noam Chomsky full length interview Who rules the world now
Noam Chomsky speaks with Stefan Molyneux about the race war of drug prohibition, the prison-industrial complex, the erosion of civil liberties under Barack Obama, moral inconsistencies within government, the removal of media gatekeepers and the reinforcement of societal norms through social ostracism.
Comments have been suspended until Google+ gets its act together.
A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled demolition.
Frequently Asked Questions:
For far more information than I could possibly give you in even a 50,000 character comment, please go to David Chandler’s excellent channel, where you will find a cornucopia of videos on the collapses of all three WTC buildings.http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChan…
If that is not enough for you, I certainly have nothing more to offer.
James Hanratty (4 October 1936 – 4 April 1962) was one of the last eight people in the UK to be executed before capital punishment was effectively abolished. He was hanged at Bedford Gaol on 4 April 1962, after being convicted of the murder of scientist Michael Gregsten, aged 36, who was shot dead in a car on the A6 at Deadman’s Hill, near Clophill, Bedfordshire in August 1961. Gregsten’s mistress, Valerie Storie, aged 22, was raped, shot five times, and left paralysed.
According to Storie, the couple were abducted at gunpoint in their car at Dorney Reach, Buckinghamshire, by a man with a Cockney accent and mannerisms matching Hanratty’s. The gunman ordered Gregsten to drive in several directions, before stopping beside the A6 at Deadman’s Hill, where the offences took place. The initial prime suspects were Hanratty, a petty criminal, and Peter Louis Alphon, an eccentric drifter. In police line-ups, Storie did not recognise Alphon, but eventually positively identified Hanratty.
Her testimony was critical in securing a guilty verdict at the trial. The verdict was questioned by many who felt the supporting evidence was too weak to justify conviction. However, a DNA test in 2002 proved Hanratty’s guilt, according to the Court of Appeal, “beyond doubt”.
While some of the original items of physical evidence were destroyed, the sample from Miss Storie’s underwear had been discovered in 1991 and, in late-1997, the handkerchief was subsequently found in the possession of the Berkshire police. DNA was donated by Hanratty’s mother and brother, which they expected to exonerate him when compared with DNA extracted from surviving evidence. Results from testing in June 1999 were said to be strong evidence of a familial match – the evidential DNA was “two and a half million times more likely” to belong to James Hanratty than to anyone else. The Court of Appeal did not have the power to order an exhumation of James Hanratty’s body, but Lord Chief Justice Woolf decided that this was desirable “in the interests of justice”.
James Hanratty’s body was exhumed in 2001 to extract his DNA. His DNA was compared with other DNA extracted from, firstly, mucus preserved in the handkerchief within which the murder weapon had been found wrapped and, secondly, semen preserved in the underwear worn by Storie when she was raped. DNA samples from both sources exactly matched James Hanratty’s DNA. Among the surviving evidential items a vial had been broken which Hanratty’s counsel argued could account for contamination.
At the subsequent appeal hearing in 2002, Michael Mansfield QC, the barrister acting for the Hanratty family, admitted that, if contamination could be excluded, the DNA evidence demonstrated that James Hanratty had committed the murder and rape. He argued that the evidence may have been contaminated because of lax handling procedures. Paul Foot and some other campaigners argued elsewhere that the DNA evidence could have been contaminated, in view of the fact that the small DNA samples from items of clothing, kept in a police laboratory for over 40 years in conditions that, as they argue, “do not satisfy modern evidential standards”, had to be subjected to amplification techniques to yield any genetic profile.
However, no DNA other than Hanratty’s was found on the handkerchief in which the murder weapon had been found wrapped. The other piece of evidence tested, a sample from Valerie Storie’s underwear, provided two different sets of male DNA – one that corresponded to Hanratty; and one which the Court of Appeal interpreted as coming from Gregsten. The decision by the Court of Appeal included a discussion of the handling of the various items of evidence involved. The argument for contamination was dismissed as “fanciful” by the judges, who concluded that the “DNA evidence, standing alone, is certain proof of guilt”. Modern testing of DNA from Hanratty’s exhumed corpse and members of his family convinced Court of Appeal judges in 2002 that Hanratty’s guilt was proved “beyond doubt”. However, they further went on to note, in the summary of their judgement:
The DNA evidence does not “stand alone” and the Court refers to some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if James Hanratty was not guilty. He would have been wrongly identified by three witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by two witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found. He had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer. He stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered. The murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used. His DNA was found on a piece of material from Valerie Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if he was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The Court concludes that this number of alleged coincidences mean that they are not coincidences but provide overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective.
An agreement between two people previously in disagreement does not denote correctness of the agreement merely agreement
Partial Pressure and boiling experiments Measurement and Technocracy book Measuring things with a Variable????
Cato said to a certain old man who was a wicked fellow, “My good sir, why do you add the shame that comes from wickedness to old age, that has so many troubles of its own?” So too do you, since poverty has so many troubles of its own, not add the terrible distress that comes from borrowing money and from debt; and do not take away from poverty its only advantage over wealth, its freedom from corroding care. For the proverb that says, “I cannot carry a goat, put an ox on my shoulder,” has a ridiculous ring. Unable to bear poverty, are you going to put on your back a money-lender, a weight hard to carry even for a rich man?
Marlowe Begining of Faust.
Till swoln with cunning,5 of a self-conceit,
His waxen wings did mount above his reach,
And, melting, heavens conspir’d his overthrow;
For, falling to a devilish exercise,
And glutted now6 with learning’s golden gifts,
He surfeits upon cursed necromancy;
Nothing so sweet as magic is to him,
Which he prefers before his chiefest bliss:
And this the man that in his study sits.
FAUSTUS discovered in his study.7
FAUSTUS. Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin
To sound the depth of that thou wilt profess:
Having commenc’d, be a divine in shew,
Yet level at the end of every art,
And live and die in Aristotle’s works.
Sweet Analytics, ’tis thou8 hast ravish’d me!
Bene disserere est finis logices.
Is, to dispute well, logic’s chiefest end?
Affords this art no greater miracle?
Then read no more; thou hast attain’d that9 end:
A greater subject fitteth Faustus’ wit:
Bid Economy10 farewell, and11 Galen come,
Seeing, Ubi desinit philosophus, ibi incipit medicus:
(Where the philosopher ends, there begins the doctor)
Be a physician, Faustus; heap up gold,
And be eterniz’d for some wondrous cure:
Summum bonum medicinae sanitas, (The greatest good medical health,)
The end of physic is our body’s health.
Why, Faustus, hast thou not attain’d that end?
Is not thy common talk found aphorisms?
Are not thy bills hung up as monuments,
Whereby whole cities have escap’d the plague,
And thousand desperate maladies been eas’d?
Yet art thou still but Faustus, and a man.
Couldst12 thou make men13 to live eternally,
Or, being dead, raise them to life again,
Then this profession were to be esteem’d.
Physic, farewell! Where is Justinian?
Si una eademque res legatur14 duobus, alter rem,
alter valorem rei, &c.
(If you read the two one and the same thing, the other thing,
One of value, etc.)
A pretty case of paltry legacies!
Exhoereditare filium non potest pater, nisi, &c.15
(Exhoereditare son, not the father, but, etc.)
Such is the subject of the institute,
And universal body of the law:16
This17 study fits a mercenary drudge,
Who aims at nothing but external trash;
Too servile18 and illiberal for me.
When all is done, divinity is best:
Jerome’s Bible, Faustus; view it well.
Stipendium peccati mors est.
(The wages of sin is death.
The reward of sin is death: that’s hard.
Si peccasse negamus, fallimur, et nulla est in nobis veritas;
(If you had sinned against the, we feel we are deceived, and there is no truth in us😉
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
there’s no truth in us. Why, then, belike we must sin, and so
Ay, we must die an everlasting death.
What doctrine call you this, Che sera, sera,19
What will be, shall be? Divinity, adieu!
These metaphysics of magicians,
And necromantic books are heavenly;
Lines, circles, scenes,20 letters, and characters;
Ay, these are those that Faustus most desires.
O, what a world of profit and delight,
Of power, of honour, of omnipotence,
Is promis’d to the studious artizan!
All things that move between the quiet poles
Shall be at my command: emperors and kings
Are but obeyed in their several provinces,
Nor can they raise the wind, or rend the clouds;
But his dominion that exceeds in this,
Stretcheth as far as doth the mind of man;
A sound magician is a mighty god:
Here, Faustus, tire21 thy brains to gain a deity.
Iso Metric Views, Cross Sections, Exploded View?
The origin of the Fire Pepys learnt later (February 24, 1667). Faryner’s people had occasion to light a candle at midnight; they went as usual into their bakehouse to light it, but as the fire had gone out, had to seek elsewhere. This striking a light in an unusual place by Faryner, his son and daughter, is asserted to have been, somehow and all unknown to them, the origin of the Fire. “Which is,” says Pepys, “a strange thing, that so horrid an effect should have so mean and uncertain a beginning.” About two in the morning, when the family were upstairs and asleep again, the choking sensation of smoke woke them up, just in time to escape and tell the tale.
ST. PAUL’S IN FLAMES.Originally engraved by Hollar for the title of Dean (afterwards Archbishop) Sancroft’s sermon on the Great Fire.ToList
There was a drought, and the flames spread on their mission of devastation, assisted by a breeze. St. Paul’s and most of the hundred City churches were not likely to be used for worship that morning. “To see the churches all filling with goods by people who themselves should have been quietly there at the time.” But service was held as usual at the Abbey; and just about sermon time, a newly elected king’s scholar, Taswell, noticing a stir and commotion—he was standing by the pulpit steps—ascertained the cause. The news had spread that the City was in flames. Like most boys the prospect of something exciting coincided with his desire to escape a long sermon, so he hastened outside in time to see four boats on the river, the occupants of which had escaped in blankets. Let us hope that as he was not fully admitted, he escaped Busby’s birch. All through the Sunday St. Paul’s was safe—the distance from Pudding Lane was a little over half a mile—and even the east end of Lombard Street was intact. The parishioners of St. Gregory and St. Faith, lulled into a false sense of security, remained confident that even though the conflagration spread westward, and the surrounding houses caught fire, the flames would not leap across the vacant space of churchyard; and the booksellers accordingly began to store their goods in St. Faith’s as though the crypt were a fireproof safe. So it might possibly have been, and in spite of sparks, had the distracted Lord Mayor been firm enough to prevent the storing of books in the churchyard, and had the cathedral roof been in good repair. The flames gradually encircled the churchyard; the goods there took fire, and the flames caught the end of a board placed on the roof to keep out the wet. The Nemesis of neglect!
Leanardo Flights of the mind. View of Da Vinci, Imagined vantage point?
In short, the drawing is an imagined or idealized view of the landscape around Vinci. It incorporates real places, vividly and beautifully sketched, but is not a real view. What it shows cannot be found and photographed, though it could perhaps be recreated, loosely, by a cunning collage of photos. Or perhaps it could be re-created by flying above the land in a hang-glider (I confess I have not tried this), for the viewpoint most powerfully suggested is an aerial one. It is a bird’s-eye view: the imagination soars above the land, and this is what it sees. One recalls a phrase in the Turin Codex on the flight of birds: ‘The movement of the bird’ – in other words the ‘big bird’ or flying-machine – ‘must always be higher than the clouds, so that the wings don’t get wet, and so that one can see more of the land.’ ‘Per iscoprire più paese’: precisely what is achieved, thirty years earlier, in the high-gliding viewpoint of the Uffizi drawing. 62
flight. As he writes his notes on the page, accompanied by the typical bird-sketches, the subject of his sentences changes from ‘the bird’ (‘If the bird wishes to turn quickly…’ etc.) to ‘you’ , and the indeterminate ‘you’ of Leonardo’s notebooks, the imagined auditor of his thoughts and observations, is always essentially Leonardo himself. He is, in his imagination, already up there: If the north wind is blowing and you are gliding above the wind, and if in your straight ascent upward that wind is threatening to overturn you, then you are free to bend your right or left wing, and with the inside wing lowered you will continue a curving motion…
Thus the architect is like a kind of physician: You know that medicines, when they are properly used, restore health to invalids, and that he who knows them thoroughly will make the right use of them if he understands the nature of man, of life and its constitution, and of health. He who knows these things thoroughly will know also what opposes them, and will be a more effective healer than any other. This too is what the sick cathedral needs – it needs a doctorarchitect, who understands the nature of the building, and the laws on which correct construction is based… This analogy is not original to Leonardo: it is found in the writings of Renaissance architects like Alberti and Filarete, and before them in Vitruvius. 63
Carthago delenda est
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), the most persistent advocate in the Senate for the total destruction of Carthage, and most famously associated with repeated use, in or out of its proper context, of the phrase Delenda est Carthago
Ruins in Carthage
The location of Carthage in North Africa
“Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam” or “Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam” (English: “Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed”) often abbreviated to “Ceterum censeo“, “Carthago delenda est“, or “Delenda est Carthago” (English: “Carthage must be destroyed”) is a Latin oratorical phrase of the Roman Republic in the 2nd Century BC prior to the Third Punic War against Carthage, by the party advocating destruction of Rome’s ancient rival Carthage, which was thought to be rebuilding its capacity for further warfare. The phrase is associated with the Roman senator Cato the Elder (234–149 BC), who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.