Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Kremlin and anti-Brussels parties in Europe

Another reason to be thankful to Russia?

The writers in The Independent, The EU Observer, and many others have agreed on a new story.

Marine Le Pen and Dmitry Rogozin

Putin is conquering Europe by funding anti-EU or far right or populist parties – the descriptions slightly differ in various articles. Most importantly, Le Pen's "Front National" in France received a EUR 9 million loan from a small Moscow bank, The First Czech-Russian Bank. (I would say that the word "Czech" appears in the name in order to beautify the name. It's the second best proposed name they had after "The First Luboš Motl Memorial Russian Bank".)

Various types of less explicit support for Jobbik, a far right party in Hungary, and a pro-Russian party in Latvia, and for FPÖ in Austria (which attended a summit in Moscow) is being mentioned, along with some vague comments involving AfD, the Alliance for Germany (a moderate anti-eurozone party in Germany).

There are a few more names that have appeared – with "evidence of strange flows" that is nearly non-existent. So I don't want to discuss these individual cases. It's a very mixed bag and the stories look unimpressive.

So let me focus on the "Front National" and on the European anti-Brussels parties as a whole and offer you a few observations.

If "Front National" is only borrowing money from the small Russian bank, I don't see anything interesting about it at all. What I find much more shocking is that "Front National" hasn't been able – we are told – to get a loan from any bank in France. Given the significant chances of the party to grow and become the most important party in France in the next elections, I find the lack of will to fund "Front National" counter-intuitive – and potentially a sign of some unhealthy political influences on the French banking industry.

At any rate, if the probability that a loan is realized depends on some "political characteristics" of the applicant, in this case FN, we shouldn't be surprised that it also depends on the location of the bank, in this case France vs Moscow. If it's politically incorrect for a bank to give a loan to FN – and I don't claim that it's certainly the reason, just think about the "if" possibility – then banks in Moscow may still be liberated from this political correctness and offer a different, partly balancing view.

If the atmosphere in the society were really free, mainstream parties – which (due to its huge support) includes FN these days – would surely find some bank in France that would lend some money to the FN. If FN has to ask foreign banks, it's strange, but it's still good that the foreign banks are capable of fixing the bias on the French financial market. I am not actually guaranteeing to you that it is a good enough financial idea to give a loan to FN; I am assuming that it is so.

The continental observations

But the main point I want to stress is that it totally ironic to see what are the international policies defended by the parties known as "far right" parties and by the other, would-be "mainstream" and "moderate" parties.

The "mainstream" and "moderate" parties seem to be doing everything they can to accelerate the start of a big war of the West against Russia, to impose and keep sanctions that affect people on purely national criteria (regardless of the costs on both sides: check the French streets covered by manure and potatoes due to the trade war), to promote a hysterically anti-Russian propaganda in the media, to breach contracts about multi-billion ships that should be delivered to a consumer, to pretend that the Ukrainians are übermenschen next to the Russian untermenschen (although they're almost identical people), to guarantee that all the citizens on the European and North American continents have the same opinions about politics that is created in the only one kosher center of the Western civilization (Gleichschaltung), to allow nationalistically overheated governments to exterminate inconvenient ethnic minorities, to label all people with the "wrong" nationality or "wrong" opinions as terrorists that should never be negotiated with and to dehumanize them, and to surround Russia by military bases as tightly as possible.

On the other hand, FN and other "far right" parties are defending the peaceful business-as-usual, the international trade and cooperation between different nations, the appreciation of the right of other nations to pursue different policies and values, the respect towards the right of significantly ethnically different provinces to decide about their status (Crimea), the understanding that individual citizens of European countries may choose their own opinions, the idea that they may listen news from many different sources, the opinion that they should deliver ships that were discussed in a very clear treaty, the philosophy that different groups of people or nations sharing the same or nearby territories should negotiate and respect the other party as humans and not fight, and so on.

It's crazy, isn't it?

The adjective "far right" was supposed to denote some similarity with the political regimes of Hitler or Mussolini. The only problem is that (almost) regardless of the perspective and chosen policies, the parties called "far right" parties are not far right, while most of those that are not called "far right" seem to be far right! The whole politics has been rotated upside down, by 180 degrees.

Between the American Civil War of the 1860s and 1936 or so, the Democrats and the Republicans have effectively exchanged their ideologies as well as strongholds. Equivalently (if you prefer passive transformations over active transformations), the parties have exchanged their names. ;-) In the 1860s, the Republicans would control the North, fund Big-Government projects, defend the social justice for blacks, while the Democrats dominated the South and wanted to keep the government small. This DEM-vs-GOP switch is bizarre and it may be hard to understand how it could have happened.

However, the U.S. example isn't "that" shocking. For many decades, both the Democrats and the Republicans would be close to the middle – perhaps in a more extreme way than they were in the recent era – and they would only differ in nuances, namely in the question which parts of the government should grow and which parts should shrink. The new era began in 1936 when the Democratic candidate, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, defeated his (accidentlly) small-government Republican competitor, simply broke this "near degeneracy", and kickstarted the pro-Big-Government Democrats as we still know them.

So it took many decades when everything was fuzzy.

But the switch we may be seeing in today's Europe might be faster, more abrupt, and more dramatic. We would never say that the "far right" parties were very similar to the "mainstream" parties. They were understood to be very different – even though some of these opinions could have been just images of propaganda even decades ago. And everyone would agree that a key defining feature of the "far right" parties is that they were pursuing (and "should" still be pursuing) policies that are worsening the relations between different racial and ethnic groups and the relationships between different countries. Do you agree that this was a good description of "far right" parties in the past?

Well, this description just doesn't work at all now, does it? It's parties we would consider "mainstream" parties for decades that insist on a Europe with "the only right opinions", so similar to the Third Reich, that want to spread hatred, worsen sanctions, amplify the risk of a war, and so on.

I have always supported "mainstream" parties associated with the peaceful relations between different nations. And I have always cared about the essence, the values, the true policies, not about labels. That's why I can't support the parties still often labeled as "mainstream parties" anymore. They simply no longer represent the policies that such parties would represent in the past – up to the era of the likes of Gerhard Schröder.

A flip is underway. I think that within years, it will be common sense – and parties such as FN, UKIP, AfD, and others will be becoming the new normal – hopefully the new normal in a peaceful Europe.

And that's the memo.


  1. Perhaps war mongering is habit forming?
    Since the NATO intervention in the Balkans, we have had them in Iraq, in Libya, in the various Arab Spring countries and in the Syria civil war. These efforts have been so successful that they are now being extended into Eastern Europe and the Russian "Near Abroad". The mainstream parties in the EU part of Europe have all endorsed these initiatives, but never allowed them to be subject to a public debate or evaluation. This seems at odds with the stated principles of representative democracy, but has received no press coverage of substance, just some voices in the blogsphere.

  2. Giving loan to a political party is something that I, if I were a prudent banker, would never do. It is a simple business issue - they need a loan, meaning they have no assets, no collateral. The repayment is highly speculative - first they eat through the money, spend them for ads, billboards, campaings - definitely a not very promising economic activity. They can only hope to get some votes and accordingly some state subsidies. But it is not certain - and I would need a 99% probability to get all my money back, plus interest, to stay in business. It seems very plausible that the lender in this case has a non-commercial agenda.

  3. Well full expansion of nazism is "Nationalsozialismus". I am sure you don't need to know German to guess its meaning :)

  4. Thank you! If there is any group I detest more than the 'anti-quantum zealots' it's the deceitful pseudo-historians. They are utterly corrupt and always corrupting. Thanks again.

  5. Off topic, yes, but thanks so much for the link. The "voice" of Feynman that comes through in these notes is completely consistent with the one I personally experienced. BTW, the "Mathematical Methods" set of notes has a significant overlap with "Mathematical Methods of Physics" by Mathews and Walker. But it should - in the preface they explicitly note that this book has its roots in lectures Feynman gave at Cornell.

  6. I look forward - with realistically restrained enthusiasm - to "The Flip". Just let's also be careful not take The Flip too lightly; so that we provide too much freedom for unhinged neurotic nutters of all kinds - e.g. people who barrack for Breivik because they have too little self-regulatory insight into what is going on - as a result of what has been put (by evolutionary pressure totality in phylogeny, via epigenetic transmission of experiences, and by direct lifetime challenges leaving behind conditioned-in states) inside their own and other people's actention selection (serving) system - i.e. at the subliminal level of the sensory subsystem of nervous systems where it is decided what we will do feel and think, or (IOW) how and with what we will become preoccupied or 'pay actention' at the 'visceromotor level, the emotional level, and the cognitive level, of ConsciousessT.

    What I mena by ConsciousnessT is nothing more than consciousess defined and meant most simply and conservatively as: states or patterns that involve and require a sufficiently intense and typically tonic excitatory - thus as if "energizing" - output of 'Reticular Activating Type' neurons {as opposed to the typically phasic firing of 'specific type' neurons} in brainspacetime.

  7. Thanks, Werdna, your comments are sort of convincing - but I still doubt that you can easily apply the today's "big questions" about politics or even the today's terminology to completely different eras.

    The thesis that "social justice" and "equal justice" are "opposite" to each other sounds exaggerated to me, for example.

  8. "A flip is underway. I think that within years, it will be common sense – and parties such as FN, UKIP, AfD, and others will be becoming the new normal – hopefully the new normal in a peaceful Europe. "

    Hopefully not.

  9. Here is Scooby's opinion: "Hopefully the continuation is underway. Scooby thinks that within years, it will be common sense that opinions diversity will be muzzled, the main powerful European parties will gag all other parties that disagree with them and will reduce them to silence, for ever. Peace can only live if there is no dissidence and if the laws of nature are the main enemy of human race".

  10. There is really only one race -- the human race. America has a Black culture that has regressed since the dawn of the civil rights movement, mainly because of the patronizing party policies of LBJ and his successors. He supported policies that increased dependency in the Black community on his party. But he didn’t care what it did to Black families.

    There is a quote by LBJ of saying ” we’ll have these niggers voting Democrat for the next 100 years.” He knew what he was doing.

  11. As is your reply---I stick with my assertions. You talk about luck, assume that the jump from "nonlife" to life HAS to be complex, make totally unsupported assertions about what HAS to be----stealth or more direct ID stuff.
    Don't be lazy---look up the Dover trial yourself and throw out your Behe and Dembski books. Irreducible complexity (immune system, flagellae etc) is a just so story. Also, you started out with the Drake equation, which I regard as the sort of thing two inebriated physicists scrawl on a napkin at a bar. I think it was put forward as a fun thought experiment--not something to actually use as gospel.
    Arguing this stuff is so boring.
    Do your own research using more reliable sources.

  12. The thing is, in PC parlance ''far-right'' can mean virtually anything ''not
    politically correct''. Hell, they even label Bruce Bawer the Democrat
    gay activist ''far-right'' these days, the only guilt of the guy: he is
    against Islamization. I imagine if some old style Communist from Eastern
    Europe would attack Islam (which is thinkable), he'd be labelled
    ''far-right'', too.

  13. Lubos, the idea of equality before/under the law, of equal justice, is that justice is blind to one's color, creed, sex, etc. The thesis of Social Justice is that Lady Justice should peek from behind her blindfold, to administer special justice for some over others. I don't think it's an exaggeration to call these "opposite" views of what Justice is.

  14. Dear Werdna, as you must have noticed, I believe in the same kind of equality and disbelieve in the same kind of equality as you do and you don't.

    But I don't agree with the interpretation of the "opposite". If one "extends" a concept in some extreme way that no longer reflects the original one, he is not creating the "opposite" of the initial concept.

  15. It's becoming increasingly clear is that the Maine, the Lusitania, possibly even the World Trade Towers are all false flag operations used to justify war. The common thread between Iraq, Libya and Ukraine/Russia is the dollar and the interest the banksters make off of it. Iraq and Libya were beginning to trade oil in other currencies as is Russia. Both Ukraine and Russia have publicly owned banking systems that can create money without debt. No debt, no power for the banksters. No derivatives for Wall Street. They are frightened and unfortunately they have centuries of practice of creating chaos that benefits them at the expense of the 99% while remaining behind the scenes. Anybody have any ideas as to where the funding is coming from for all the Nazi groups from all over Europe that have taken up the Ukraine banner?

  16. Dear Philip, you know, I don't really care what ever crazier delusions the PC folks spread. It's just you, not me, who is working to make their opinions more visible and perhaps promote them.

    What's more relevant is that along with hundreds of millions of people, I've been using the term "far right" myself for a rather well-defined thing that didn't need one to be PC to understand what it means.

  17. @Luboš - well I can't see how criticizing politically correct delusions (which can sometimes be widely held) can be classified as ''promoting'' them. I don't think your own posts criticial of feminist extremism can be regarded as ''making their opinions more visible and perhaps promot[ing] them''.


  18. "An emergent system with “will” can perhaps in principle override mere wiggly quantum and fluid dynamic chaos and have Newtonian physics merely be it's plaything."

    not according to the free-will theorem!

    "if indeed there exist any experimenters with a modicum of free will, then elementary particles must have their own share of this valuable commodity."

  19. To criticize is to volunteer. YOU propose a physics experiment empirically confirming SUSY, quantum gravitation, dark matter. I propose six classes of experiments to falsify all three. Chiral calorimetry, chiral rotation temperature (IR, Raman) require one day in existing apparatus.

    Who is the crackpot, the religionist (Aristotle) or the scientist (Galileo plus Popper)? Luboš is no fool. We both know models are bounded by falsification. Debate, Tommy Aquinas vs. Baruch Spinoza, is inert.

  20. What about the Jews? Maybe there's nothing negative to say. But no one dares say anything because there are Jewish organizations that police all and any attention that is at all critical. Or Scrutiny in general But they are the primary elite of America now. The WASPs were thrown out. But at least with the WASPS we were allowed to speak their name and say they were powerful and they were the elite. At least we were allowed to scrutinize them and be negative. Now we are not allowed to speak the name of our elite. We're not ballowed to criticize our elite. We not allowed to even to say that our elite is powerful.. OUr elite must not be spoken of. Or scrutinized. Daring to speak up means losing everything if you have everything lf you have anything to lose. This is our new elite. We are all the way That's what our new elite thinks it has the right to do.


    Quantitative analysis of spreading life in the universe.

  22. Here are some interesting (alleged) quotations of Einstein

    "At that 1927 conference Einstein made a short presentation during the general discussion session, where he focused on problems of interpretation associated with the collapse of the wave function. He imagines a situation where electrons pass through a small hole and are dispersed uniformly in the direction of a screen of photographic film shaped into a large hemisphere that surrounds the hole. On the supposition that quantum theory offers a complete account of individual processes then, in the case of localization, why does the whole wave front collapse to just one single flash point? It is as though at the moment of collapse an instantaneous signal were sent out from the point of collapse to all other possible collapse positions telling them not to flash. Thus Einstein maintains (Bacciagaluppi and Valentini 2009, p. 488),

    the interpretation, according to which |ψ|² expresses the probability that this particle is found at a given point, assumes an entirely peculiar mechanism of action at a distance, which prevents the wave continuously distributed in space from producing an action in two places on the screen."

  23. An interesting and fun paper actually.

  24. There was an opinion
    (Mensky's book on path integrals) that the von Neumann’s no-go theorem is
    valid only for the case of countable hidden variables, and uncountable paths in
    the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics can be considered, in
    principle, as a sort of uncountable classical hidden parameters (well, those
    who agree with this opinion can read

  25. I read Rosinger's paper and his main gripe seems to be:

    "This certainly contradicts the usual axioms of Quantum Mechanics, since it follows that within the given quantum state space L2(R), such basic observables like position X and momentum P simply cannot be observed, as they fail to have eigenvalues !"

    He doesn't accept rigged Hilbert space as the solution. I'll admit that, upon encountering rigged Hilbert space for the first time, it looked like a hack to me. However, upon reading more on Schwartz tempered distributions, the concept of generalized functions seemed quite natural to me. Why should Nature prefer infinitely (or at all) differentiable functions?

    Finally, thanks to the concepts of non-principal ultrafilter and ultraproduct in mathematics, one doesn't even need rigged Hilbert space in order to have a function space with mathematically well defined eingenvectors of continuous variables, such as position.

  26. Well, right, this was the dogma Einstein would be saying for the rest of his life, and it's completely wrong. There is no mechanism or action at a distance needed for a "collapse" because this "collapse" is just the transformation of possibilities to an actual outcome, but the previous possibilities don't exist as a real object that would need to be "collapsed".

  27. Nature prefers differentiable functions because the laws of physics have a natural form in terms of differential equations. Lorentz symmetry - principle of relativity - implies that if the equations are differential in time, they have to be differential in space, too.

    The situation with rigged spaces may bring some differences from the "discrete" Hilbert spaces but they're very minor. Quantum mechanics of point-like particles, for example, may be regulated both in the UV and IR - put the system in a box; and replace the smooth space by a lattice - and then one may use finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. But the continuous limit is more beautiful, has extra symmetries that are impossible in the discrete case, and those symmetries constrain the laws of physics.

  28. "immune system, flagellae etc"?
    Unsurprisingly, I was correct about the Dover trials - you do confuse (blatantly) the road to the simplest self-replicating molecules with the road from those molecules to more complex life.

    My "assumptions" (about the impossiblity of darwinian selection until one has a self-replicating molecule; the inevitable complexity of any such molecule) are heavily supported by evidence and logic.
    All you managed to come up with as "counterarguments" are dictums, ad personams. And the Dover trial straw-man.
    All this, AFTER I pointed out your logical fallacies. Lol.

    Also - you being butthurt and seeing everywhere ID and such is also irrelevant.

  29. lol "logical fallacies" "straw man"...
    Do some real research, man.
    Look at some of the more recent origins of life research by Hazen and others---early days but not "magic"---RNA first/metabolism first models etc. I haven't posted "counterarguments" because it would take time, and we would be arguing the degree of complexity required for self-replication, and I have a "life". Look at different models of self replication--cellular automata models like Conway's "Life" game ---do some real origins of life online data searching from valid sources. Also, to paraphrase Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of "life" is.

  30. That article is important to us outsiders of PHYSICS, but still, it just thrusts a sword in at some arbitrary level, so it just comes off as posture. My freemason's appreciation of some odd "organizing principle" still feels intact after all that.

  31. As is happens, I am familiar with the origins of life research.
    And if you were familiar with it, too (highly doubtful, given how you were unable to recognise your Dover trial for the straw-man it is until I pointed this out to you - TWICE) you would know how difficult it is to create a self-replicating molecule and how complex this molecule has to be.