Monday, April 26, 2021

Isaac Newton benefited from colonialism



In recent years, neomarxist lies, distortions, and hateful emotions have been penetrating to places where they looked almost unimaginable just a decade ago, including the physics departments. The Daily Mail (and originally The Telegraph which has a paywall, however) brought us news from Sheffield University in the U.K. (which is arguably the country that is more contaminated by the neomarxist poison than any other country in the world):
Students could be told how Sir Isaac Newton 'benefited from colonialism' in curriculum overhaul being considered at Sheffield University
Leaked documents indicate that the university will try to introduce an "inclusive curriculum" of physics by demanding that the instructors include anti-white disclaimers. These disclaimers target Isaac Newton, probably the most ingenious thinker in the known human history, as well as other giants such as Newton's foe Gottfried von Leibniz, Pierre-Simon Laplace, and Paul Dirac.



In particular, a would-be negative point that is believed by the new heirs to Goebbels to diminish the stature of Isaac Newton is a comment that "he benefited from colonialism". Well, he surely did. And as some more reasonable people quoted in the article point out, all of England has benefited from colonialism. And let me tell you something shocking (for the readers whose thinking got stuck in the kindergarten): the European civilization – and its approximate extension which is pretty much the global civilization now – has benefited from colonialism, too. And in particular, despite some negative terms in the balance, colonies such as India have greatly benefited from colonialism, too.



The primarily white colonists have had some very clever know-how that made it possible to exploit the (human and natural) resources of the colonies – and turn them into wealth; I am talking about the wealth of the colonial powers as well as the colonies themselves, to some extent. Without the know-how of the colonists and its application, this kind of the potential of the colonies would remain unused.

Every at least moderately intelligent and educated person knows that Newton's (and Laplace's, Leibniz's, Dirac's...; but I should also include more practical men) contributions have been absolutely crucial for the well-being of the modern mankind, relatively to the miserable Middle Ages. And if we agree that these men and their work have benefited from colonialism, it is not hard for a person who is not completely dumb to figure out that from a very important perspective, colonialism was a pretty good thing.

From the viewpoint of the whole, so was slavery. Many empires (including the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago; and the U.S.) could have only achieved the actual historical growth and progress in their golden epochs because they could have exploited the institution of slavery. These days, it is politically correct to mindlessly criticize slavery. The civil rights and legal equality between the people weren't respected. That's true but it doesn't mean that empires and mankind haven't benefited from slavery. They have.

If the students were just told memes such as "Newton has benefited from colonialism" (well, he owned the stocks of the South Sea Company which did trade slaves in some period – so Newton surely wasn't an anti-slavery activist, and no scholar of his caliber has ever been an anti-slavery activist, either – well, it is true simply because Newton has had no peer so far; Newton made a GBP 7,000 profit on this company when he closed the position for the first time but he bought it again when it was overpriced and lost GBP 20,000), they would reasonably conclude that colonialism wasn't "a purely bad thing". It was good for some very good and important events, too.

Sadly, in the current conditions and given the present "human material" of the U.K. students (plus the abolition of the free speech at the universities), this is not the expected or likely outcome of this ideological penetration to the physics classes. The expectation is very different: the students will conclude that Newton's insights and/or all of our mathematics and physics as represented by the likes of Newton, Leibniz, Laplace, and Dirac is a bit evil or very evil because they were "tainted" by colonialism which is one of the "absolute evils". Most of the students really are this dumb (or brainwashed) today – dumb (or brainwashed) enough to place disgusting anti-white and anti-European talking points above things such as Newton's laws.

If you are one of the people who will make this conclusion – that Isaac Newton is tainted – let me tell you that a world in which you would be slave would be a vastly better world for mankind as well as for you personally. Because of the assumptiions above, you are probably incapable of understanding why the previous sentence is true but that handicap of yours doesn't make the sentence any less true or important. If you are ready to lower your respect for Isaac Newton because of some anti-white neomarxist talking points, you are not ready to exploit your independence in a useful way because you aren't really capable of being independent.

You are dependent and your current dependence on the neomarxist overlords is much less useful for mankind than your dependence on your slaveowner would have been a few centuries or millenniums ago. The possession of "dependent people" isn't a universal evil. It is a possible aspect of the arrangement of human relationships that brings some negative and some positive consequences – and the positive ones may prevail under certain circumstances. They may prevail for the whole (for mankind) in the aggregate sense, they may prevail for one side of the relationship, or even for both sides of the relationship at the individual level.

Needless to say, the staggering morons who expect Isaac Newton's prestige to be reduced by the observation that "he benefited from colonialism" don't understand our world at all. They think that "he benefited from colonialism" is basically equivalent to "he belonged to a group of thieves that simply stole something from the inhabitants of the colonies" and for this reason, Newton's laws were "partly stolen" from the exotic nations, too. But that is not how economics works and that is not where 17th century physics was done. The folks in the colonies didn't have an idea about the calculus or Newton's laws back in the 17th century – and they would have been equally clueless with or without the colonial system, too. Newton just hasn't stolen any physics insights from the people in the colonies – but he still benefited from the colonial system. The magic fact about the economic relationships is that they are not a zero-sum game – and both sides benefit during consensual or cooperative transactions.

Here I simply must quote Richard P. Feynman who once attended a conference where an extreme leftist, a Jewish speaker, demanded the world's wealth to be divided to everyone, to prevent wars etc. Feynman was as angry about this leftist (and the numerous clueless participants of the conference who started to endorse him through a petition) as your humble correspondent. Feynman's comments may be found in the section Is Electricity Fire? of his popular autobiography, Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman.
...There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I’m telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we’re doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we’re all even. Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home.

The next day one of the guys in our group said, “I think that speech last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the summary of our conference.”

I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into account the real reason for the differences between countries—that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

The conference made me so nervous that a girl I knew in New York had to calm me down. “Look,” she said, “you’re shaking!..."
In 2021, Feynman would be shaking all the time. At a conference after the Second World War, a single Jewish nutty theologian said these insane things. Nowadays, there are millions of people repeating these delusions and they have even filled large media outlets (which are incredibly called "mainstream media" although almost everyone is a loon there) and whole departments of universities, aside from many other influential venues. Of course Feynman would be shaking much more than he did over half a century ago. In fact, I think that his shaking would be so intense that he would force us to reconsider the (wrong, debunked) theory of Zitterbewegung. (No physically measurable quantity is oscillating at the frequency \(m_e c^2 / \hbar\) because the interference between states whose charge differs by \(\Delta Q = 2\) would be needed but those belong to different superselection sectors and shouldn't be combined into superpositions.)

I am shaking as well, whenever I hear about the extreme leftists who misunderstand this exact basic general fact about the world – that the growth that matters isn't obtained by even redistribution but by the concentration of capital that may produce new technologies and more effective methods of doing things. But I have already re-calibrated my shaking to increase my chances of (temporary) survival. I had to because similar moronic unhinged extreme leftists are basically everywhere in April 2021.

The students who voluntarily join a university where they place far left, racist, anti-white delusions above Newton's laws simply aren't stuff for genuine universities. Sheffield University will gradually turn to a shelter for young morons whose average IQ simply has to be below 100.

No comments:

Post a Comment