Cybernethics / Cybernéthique

Since I'm processing the backlog of my blog notes, here's one piece about a topic that has been at the center of several scandals this year yet surprisingly little open public discussions: genetic differences amongst human beings.

Gustavo's rant summarizes why universities are obsolete. But were they ever up-to-date? Steve Jobs suggests they never were. Paul Graham tries to tell how to make the most out of college, but ends up telling how to make the most, out of college.

Universities are loci of anti-asian racism, brainwashing by leftist loonies, and ignoble evil-worship. From Plato to catholic theology to communist worship to islamofascist propaganda, academia has always been the premier tool to promote totalitarianism through the annihilation of reason, or at least its subjection to unlimited Political Power.

I'm not sure whether Universities can be replaced completely by online solutions, but if they can't, it's more than time for some Hercules to clean these Augean Stables. The one and only necessary and sufficient measure: withdraw any interference by political power in education.

In a previous post, I told you of a door hack one of my colleagues did, and what social concepts it illustrated. Mind you, when I was younger, I also did my own door hacks. My former clubmates from the Club Informatique of Lycée Louis-le-Grand may remember one that I did long ago, back in High-School. In retrospect, I realize this anecdote too may illustrate a number of interesting social concepts.

Oui, la responsabilité individuelle est une "fiction". Tandis, que "la société", "l'utilité publiique", "l'intérêt nazional" (socialiiiste), le "paradiis communiste", c'est quelque chose de tout-à-fait concret, de parfaitement défini, et de merveilleusement incarné par notre glorieux État et sa bienveillante Administrazion, -- sous condition toutefois que ce soit mon parti, ma faction, mes opinions, mon autorité, qui y prédomine -- sinon, ce même État est un instrument d'oppression aux mains de l'ÉnemydeklaSS. Bon, il y a malheureusement peu de chance que mon avis personnel soit pris en considérazion -- c'est pourquoi je soutiens pleinement la candidature de X..., chef que je me suis désigné, qui est un homme parfaitement droit et honnête, compétent et intellligent, bon et courageux, et surtout, qui ne possède aucun préjugé (différent des miens) (à ce que je sache) (d'après ce qu'il ressort de sa campagne) (du moins en comparaison de toute autre personne) (si l'on restreint le choix aux candidats engagés) (voire à ceux qui ont une chance de passer) (oops, ça ne fait plus grand monde) (merde alors, il ne reste plus qu'à voter Chirac).

One of the first thing that any so-called "macro-economist" does when studying a phenomenon, is to postulate a deterministic model in which there is no choice and all economic costs are thus zero. That is, whenever they introduce mathematical tools, which they do so as to pose as physics-like hard scientists, they begin by negating the very essence of economics: the notion of economic cost. They are actually based upon an epistemology that explicitly denies individuals the essence of their human nature: the ability to make relevant choices. This is true of all economists from all schools of economics, save the few libertarians from the austrian school and its direct relatives. And the crooks include the neo-classical schools (that dictates the economic orthodoxy in most rich countries), and the keynesian and marxist schools (that dictate the economic orthodoxy in France and other socialist countries). No wonder why all these schools of economics produce only lies, in the form of deceitful statistics and bogus assumptions smuggled under the veil of meaningless mathematics.

If mathematical models were to be used at all in economic science, we would need non-deterministic models, replacing (neo)classical economics with quantum economics. And then we'd find that we're not able to even imagine the Feynman diagrams of all possible interactions over which to integrate our economic functions, because the relevant interactions that will take place between agents are precisely those based upon information that others don't have, including the person trying to build the model.

PS: Oh yes, one particular crook from the top of the Establishment just called me ridiculous for rejecting the results of so many scientific studies based on empiricism. You may find more about the fraud that is empiricism in social sciences by reading e.g. Hoppe, whom you may hear in this course.

... is exactly what dominates the Intelligentsia in France and other countries.

You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a communist. You do not declare your love for the regime. You do not call on people to support the Soviets. Ever. Under any circumstances. You claim to be an independent-minded idealist. You don't understand politics, but you think the little guy is getting a lousy break. You believe in open-mindedness. You are shocked, frightened by what is going on right here in our own country. You are frightened by the racism, by the oppression of the working man. You think that the Russians are trying a great human experiment, and you hope it works. You believe in peace. You yearn for international understanding. You hate fascism. You think the capitalist system is corrupt. You say it over and over again and you say nothing, nothing more.

Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas against the West by Stephen Koch

Of course, Stalin also had more obvious agents.

So you think there is nothing interesting to say at the intersection of Computer Science and Political Economics? Well, Feynman said that Everything is interesting if you go into it deeply enough. And going deeply into it is precisely what I've been doing for ten years now. So there below are some things I have to say about Computer Science and Political Economics.

That is, things beyond the fact that both Computer Science and Political Economics are completely fallacious albeit traditional names: indeed, the former is not a Science (it is an Art, or an Engineering Enterprise, which is one and the same) and to quote Dijkstra it is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes, whereas the other is both against Politics and beyond Economics (in either the original Aristotelian meaning of husbandry, or the modern statist meaning of taxable monetary transactions). Good Computer Science is actually Lisp Lore and Craft; good Political Economics is Libertarian Human Action.

Note that if you're not too much into computing, you may skip directly to the paragraph that mention Political Economics and Education. Yes, this is also about Education.

The Evil of Academic Curricula in Computer Science
Chapter I
Parsing Considered Harmful