Otto Lilienthal (23 May 1848 – 10 August 1896) was a German pioneer of aviation, and he was known as the “flying man.”
He made his hill and glider and systematically investigated the behavior of different airfoils and the principles of gliding, on how to generate lift and control of flight. He collected a lot of data, later used by the Wright brothers. Unfortunately, on 9 August 1896, while testing a new glider, the airfoil stalled and he falls from above 15 m, breaking his neck and dying the next day. Fearing to have the same fate, the Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, used the wind tunnel to be sure that the aircraft was stable, were controllable, and they flew about 6 meters above the ground… With the obsession of stability, in Europe, people were building aircraft so stable that was impossible to make a turn, but the Wright brothers succeed to make the airplane stable but also sufficiently agile to make turns with it. They succeed in making the first circular flight by a powered airplane on September 20, 1904.
The most sophisticated examination considering the Earth’s eco-deadline was just published in August in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution. Drawing upon 36 meta-analyses, involving more than 4,600 individual studies spanning the last 45 years, nine ecologists, working from universities in Germany, France, Ireland, and Finland, explain that the empirical data simply does not permit the determination of any kind of environmental dooms date, or “thresholds” as scientists call them.
These scholars state frankly: “We lack systematic quantitative evidence as to whether empirical data allow the definition of such thresholds” and “our results thus question the pervasive presence of threshold concepts” found in environmental politics and policy today. They explain that natural bio-systems are so dynamic—ever-evolving and adapting over the long-term—that determining longevity timeframes is impossible. Talk of a ticking eco-clock is simply dogma. Two major books published in 2020 serve as carefully researched and copiously documented critiques of environmental scaremongering. Both are written by pedigreed progressive environmentalists concerned about the irrationally wild rhetoric of late.
Traugott Örsak is an innovator by necessity and founder of the club of ignorant and forgotten. I met him last week in Lisbon. Lisbon is turning into a cosmopolite hub, as she was at the beginning of globalization, during the XVthe century. My strong interest in founding a startup collided with his opposite view, that we should create also a dual entity, an “enddown”. An enddown is an enterprise that has an end that is not resumed to profit for some, but profits for all citizens. It aims for profit to earn a bourse of exchange of goods and services, but a generous share of this earned bourse supports the community, aims to go down, to Society. An enddown is a branch of a circuit, a transistor that channels wealth inside society. It is not a Leftist congemination, as the members of the club of ignorant and forgotten are well aware that the Left is an idealistic construction with no adherence to reality, to the needs of people. The Left is a trap, a supposedly moral justification from the rich to sustain their narrative. Fidel Castro was a Leftist and that made him a very rich man, told Forbes magazine. The French call these idealistic, and not always so, “the Left caviar”. We are Democrats. We want to be freed from ignorance. We meet when necessary in the caves of Lisbon in the Alfama or Bairro Alto, wherein the Discovery Period people from all corners of the world met to play music and sing. They invented the Fado. We meet to learn from each other and prepare action for society. We have in our logo a triangular construction, not because we are Illuminati (another laughable construction from people needing some fun in their lives), by the contrary, we are ignorant and forgotten because we don’t play with the same techniques as the socialite, but because in this world every thought from humans becomings (we are not human beings, as I will explain later) use triangular constructions to understand something. Nature uses triangulation to make stable things, like protons made of three quarks. Mesons are unstable because made of two quarks. Triangulation is, for now, all we got to understand the world, this world, the Unicorn World.
We do experiences with Time. Time is fast, and if inside the framework of the theory of relativity, time and space play similar roles, the truth is, we can stay sitting on a desk while time runs away. However, truly we feel the time is strongly related to being. Beings – a wrong word for a creature – so, Becomings feel time differently from robots, obeying the local rhythm of clocks. If you feel anxious with a lack of time, try to slow down the rhythm of your movements and experience the rhythm of your body. You will discover a new dimension of time, a hidden time. Suddenly, you feel time passes slow enough. Perhaps even you got enough time to fulfill more tasks than you use to. If you succeed, you will start to become a master creature. A Becoming.
The hand-note below summarizes one of our last discussions, the nucleus of the human becomings effort to understand anything in the unicorn world. The Unicorn world means the idealized but not real world we had constructed along with History.
From the above schematic, we may expect cybernetics will fail the dream of enlightening human becomings. The rise of robotics is doomed. We still miss the understanding of the triangular construction.
Acknowledgments – We all stand on the shoulder of giants. So, I would like to express my gratitude to Emmanuel Kant, Albert Einstein Gabriel Vacariu, Karl Popper, and R. C. Sproul, for turning my life easier.
Disclaimer – At the request by Jean Maurier, I must state that the above compte-rendu is personal and is in no way a refutation of the goodwill from the Left. Theodore Kai reminds me that it remained unclear the role of the “Father” and “Son”, in the illustration pictured overhead. Wine to the table, please!
One of the situations that I found most unfortunate is the playground, mental level, and theories sustaining in this century the political action, and, by contrast, the extraordinary evolution that occurred in mathematics, philosophy, science, and technology. While the political action, necessary to think about the ways our societies might evolve, is necessary, the ideas sustaining the political action are old, disputable, and needing a rational change of perspective. Otherwise, our societies will keep this permanent state of confusion, this permanent and perilous turmoil. No ideology will come in our salvation because there is none available, no rational idea fits on the matrix, the global system is a hostage in the devil’s well, at the hands of the same people for, who knows! very long time.
In the West, the famous book of Nikolau Machiavelli, The Prince, is the spiritual bible of any greedy politician. But Machiavelli was a good man, every friend of his had that same opinion, but, him, to survive and keep alive his wife and children had to commit writing advice to the princes while he witnesses all their unwise decisions and actions.
In 1502 Machiavelli married Marietta Corsini, who bore him four sons and two daughters. His grandson, Giovanni Ricci, is credited with saving many of Machiavelli’s letters and writings. Machiavelli, paradoxically, was a Republican and, in 1510, Machiavelli was a member of an active citizen militia (e.g., a body of citizens, who are not soldiers by career, called to duty in a national emergency) of the Florentine Republic, so much loved by Machiavelli.
Later, Machiavelli was arrested and imprisoned, with so much urgency about his capture. Documents on his arrest were recently discovered and it was clear that he was the public enemy number one in Florence at that particular moment.
He didn’t flee, and, on the same day as the proclamation was released, Machiavelli was detained, tortured, and placed under house arrest. At night, while his wife and children slept, he started writing his famous book The Prince, describing the art of political manipulation. The story goes that The Prince, somehow a mysterious title since the Medicis were bankers and not yet monarchs, was written in the vain hope of gaining favor and employment with the Medici. The truth is that there’s no evidence that they even read it. Why should they? Machiavelli died in poverty 14 years after his arrest.
But the main question is: how a republican as Machiavelli was, could have written such a devil work? After all, he based his thoughts on what he had learned from Julius Cesar and other despots, the major of them, Cesar Borgia that he observed during his military campaigns in the Italian Romagna. It was Borgia that he used as the model of how a prince should behave.
I strongly believe that Machiavelli wrote The Prince with poison, as the bible of the tyrans for the common citizen awareness.
Thanks to the invasive media and the mastering of the propaganda techniques perfection since WWII, this beautiful world and the potential life that the cosmos created in a cosmic apotheosis is permanently tainted of red and gray, permanently on the verge of another world or regional war.
The Prince is a seminal work, a would-be tyrant’s handbook with a lasting influence on political thought and culture. But the book was interpreted the wrong way. Machiavelli was telling us that we, citizens, need to realize that by trusting leaders too much and themselves too little, we create our political nightmares. Machiavelli wrote to a friend: “I’d like to teach them the way to hell,” he told a friend toward the end of his life, “so they can steer clear of it.”
Today, scholars realize that Machiavelli wrote his book with double-edged lines, he makes it clear why popular government is better than authoritarian rule.
I quote next the lucid text written by Erica Banners: “Nothing makes a new prince so esteemed as to carry on great enterprises and give rare examples of himself. In our times we have Ferdinand of Aragon. If you consider his actions, you will find them great and some of them extraordinary. He kept the minds of the barons of Castile preoccupied with war; so they did not perceive that he was acquiring reputation and power over them. Besides this, to undertake greater enterprises, always making use of religion, he turned to an act of pious cruelty, expelling the Marranos [forcibly converted Muslims and Jews] and purging them from his kingdom; nor could there be a more wretched example than this. And so he has always done and ordered great things, which have always kept the minds of his subjects in suspense and admiration and occupied with their outcome. And his actions have followed one upon another so that men never have time to work steadily against him.”
We live in a world of distractions where the common citizen has no influence, is at the mercy of the powerful, living in fakes democracies, permanently abused by distraction tactics. Can they ever bring states lasting security? Machiavelli’s answer is, no, they can’t. True political success needs a new class of different methodologies and long-range solutions to complex situations.
Alongside his lessons for citizens, he also has a message for new populist princes. Again, here, I cite the beautiful text by Erica Banners: “You might, he tells them, rise with ease to the top by using divide-and-rule tactics and other stock manipulations. People might believe your self-serving version of reality – the world of us-versus-a-thousand-predators – for a while. But in the daily grind of governing, harder realities bite. Then you’ll be tempted to show everyone who’s boss, and try to ascend from a civil order to an absolute one. But be warned: citizens who are used to being governed by laws and magistrates are not ready, in these emergencies, to obey a despot. And if you do steal their freedoms, they never forget them. “The memory of their old liberty cannot let them rest.” They’ll fight you down to the scorched and bloody earth. Oh, and don’t bother building walls to keep out foreigners. Poisonous inequalities, citizens who hate each other, government that lacks legitimacy: these are what make states vulnerable. Walls just advertise your failure to deal with them.”
Today, yet again, old and new democracies are fighting for their lives. Between his double-edged lines, Machiavelli makes it clear why the law-governed popular government is always better than an authoritarian rule: “A people who can do whatever it wants is unwise, but a prince who can do whatever he wants is crazy.” His life and words inspire us to become sharper readers of political danger signs, and ruthless warriors for our freedoms. The Prince had in mind their destruction, the tyrant’s destruction. Unfortunately, it is still the bible of the influential, and rich families, and their employees that together rule the world, the political parties, and politicians from right to left.
Society lives off illusions, myths, lies. It is so far only given to us at the present moment what we can see with our eyes or reach with our hands. The currency is created in any bank using a computer and the zeros appear with the keyboard struck. Access to it is very scarce and the overwhelming majority struggle not to drown in debt aiming to the life that think they deserve. Science has never been as politicized as it is nowadays. All it takes is for an official foundation to open a line of credit to study global warming (obligatorily demonstrating the threat posed by human activity) or the positive impact of vaccines (implying billionaire profits), or any campaign for the LGBTQIA+, or whatever "grand illusion", never solving the problem of misery or poverty (that's an authoritarian promise from UN but only in 2030)... Friends become scarce, distance themselves, or die. Your wife, or your husband, in the end, doesn't give you a damn. It is better for you to expect to spend your last days alone or, with a bit of luck, to be in line to embrace the sweet death in an asylum. You may believe in faith and embrace a religion, just to listen to your priest seriously advise you: "thrust the Virgin and don't run"...The UN and the WEF proposal of a future to all is nothing else than an "elite" (meaning, having more coins than you) proposal that is laughable and incompetent and devoid of ideas and realism. Where will we stop? Is there still a possible choice between a bankrupt and illusory society and the lonely path with some good company? Is there any intelligence out there or are we alone?
«When power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man’s concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses, for art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstones of our judgement. The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state.» - John F. Kennedy
Can we beat the market? It seems yes and the paper referred below shows it is possible with Japanese candle patterns. More than that, it doesn't matter if zillions people use the same technique.
The human being is not the only living being that is “bad” for the environment. So are elephants, grasshoppers, carp, some species of frogs, cattle, some species of insects, and the list could be extended even further, including the monkeys that destroy the bivalve population off the coast of some Asian countries. . Which brings us to the question: how can life be “bad” for the environment? There are certainly distorted ideas on the issue, fueled by political ideologies (the myth of overpopulation and the malign effect of technology and the use of instruments of action on the “environment”) and above all by the lack of clarity with which we understand the dual role of energy and entropy.
In a world where continual consensus is called for by those in power, otherwise, we are named extreme-right, denialists, I think it is normal to take the path of scientific inquiry, or, take reasonable inferences based on facts. And then we draw our conclusions. It is what I suggest in this text, that the reader makes his readings based on credible sources and decides. It is our freedom and the humanist ideal in need of achievement that is at risk.
This false and dangerous argument, fueled by the Club of Rome, WEF, UN and others, could lead to a decade of torture, with permanent restrictions on the freedom of the citizen and a sense of modernity, Fauci warns just like his Chinese counterpart (in some aspects both regimes agree on the fundamental issue…):
That the virus escaped from Wuhan’s laboratory is very plausible, but it was certainly not just the action of the Chinese considering there is a huge investment from the USA, examine this interview with one of the world’s leading experts and WHO, representatives
https: //www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4104828 …
The lifting of the gain-of-function moratorium gives Bill Gates a plethora of reasons when he warns (but should have objected if he were not a defender of population control) that more pandemics will come on our way
Probably there are more further reasons to worry about in the literature (but who cares?!). When will this virus escape from Wuhan’s laboratory or the new one, supported by scientific funds from all abroad, where it will be/is made? Why don’t the UN and WHO, always so seemingly human, end these destructive games for good?
It becomes more evident that citizens of the global world must take care of their future, and not leave it loosely in the hands of others, greedy, powerful, but frequently wrong and insensitive in their assumptions. When the world was achieving a high level of improvement, freedom, and education, what is offered to us instead – and with signs of a long cycle of telework and lockdowns-, is a tortured life to endure until the satisfaction of their “agenda” in 2030.
The Enlightenment and the progress of science that followed up with the idea of a universe governed by physical laws instead of divine providence contributed to nihilism. Nietzsche was an atheist but he realized that with killing God humankind was killing the opportunity of a better understanding of the world. Without a belief system, humans are jeopardizing their future, humans are at peril of despair and meaninglessness.
In The Gay Science he declares: “God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown.” and in the Twilight of the Idols he asserts: “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”
Amidst the killing of God, it appears nowadays that some suggest the killing of men, now replacing God in His importance. That’s why it comes with no surprise when Sir David Attenborough says :
“We are a plague on the Earth, […]. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so.” And the accompanying argument of the antropogenic climate change and the sin of overpopulation. Without a God to accuse, Man self-proclaimed to be the origin of numerous crucial events on Earth, the driver of his fate. Are these ideas sure, well based? Do they need continuous monitoring and suspicion?
Some specialists now questioned if our presumption of overpopulation might lead us to extinction (e.g., Refs.[2,3]). Other scientists do not bear the statement that CO2 is the main cause of global warming (why not the solar cycles?) . But, to exorcise any chance of doubt, anything diverging from the new table of the law is criticized as fake news.
Like in a closed-loop, science is now marooned in the name of science. Science, which in substance is persistent uncertainty and experience to examine the ideas we make of the world, now signals the culmination of history. Is incompetent to cope with pandemics in an efficient and agile process. Men of science, despite having profoundly studied coronavirus, act alike ignorants confronting the uncertainty of the virus even after have studied its gain-of-function. The exclusive solution they have is medieval measures of the Moyen Age. Man, son of the universe, who knows, the solitary intelligent being so far detected among the myriads of astronomical bodies, that amongst permanent uncertainty cure disease, invent, and reimagine himself, is now sacrificed, condemned. How to protect him from himself?
Is out there in our history some logical process at work? Kurt Gödel, the famous mathematician assured certainly. According to him, the world is subject to large-scale “noncausal” laws. He penned: “There are structural laws in the world which can’t be explained causally.” “The world tends to deteriorate”. “Good things appear from time to time in single persons and events…but the general development tends to be negative”. Also, let’s remind related thoughts, this one from Simone Weil, “since [Christ’s] day there have been no very noticeable changes in men’s behavior” .
The modern historic time we all live in shows the insufficiency of a more in-depth comprehension of humanity, our bodies, and hearts, our souls, to rediscover who we are, rather than to attempt the simulacra of life obedient to the tables of laws ordained by men succeeding God.