Sending your kids to die in a nuclear holocaust - yes, anyone who is pro nato, pro nuke and/or anti-corbyn or apathetic you are aligning yourself with the most warped backward genocidal self-destructive movement in history.
Thrust of argument: On Facebook Pepe Escobar warns:
NATO: THE WHOLE RACKET IN ONE MINUTE
NATO, de facto brain dead, whatever Macron's agenda, is nothing but a tsunami of cash pillaged by the trans-Atlantic industrial-military-surveillance complex. The raison d'etre: "aggressive" Russia "threatening euro-Atlantic security" - as stated in the final declaration of that pathetic summit in London.
So everyone must raise military expenses to at least 2% of GDP, and 20% of that must be for - what else - weapons purchases. 16 of the 29 NATO members are already on it.
NATO mutts accused Russia - again, with ZERO evidence - of having deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles and thus buried the INF.
Bullshit. I moderated a debate in Nur-Sultan last month that was almost derailed into a shouting match between the accusing Americans and the Russians, who proved they did NOT deploy such missiles. The Americans buried the INF because they are freaking out with China's steady progress in nuclear missiles.
NATO more than ever is a NUCLEAR alliance. On top of it there's the Pentagon's always prominent Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine. Combine both and you have NATO's militarization of space - mega, extra bonus for the industrial-military-security complex.
And if all that was not enough, the racket is expanding to counter the China "threat". NATO's spin is that it's an indispensable alliance for the West to fight the Russia-China strategic partnership. I'm among a very restricted group of global analysts who have been stressing this point non-stop for YEARS. NATO's London summit provided the definitive confirmation.
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Nuclear dick-waving heralds the end of human history.
Removal of resistance: White racists need to calm their fucked up hormones and stop putting THE WHOLE WORLD AT RISK.
Unification: Time to remind you of some key Feynman, I think:
For the Snark WAS a Boojum, you see.
It is useful to pay attention to Mr Feynman's words in a television interview when summing up the problems at NASA which caused the Challenger disaster, in his opinion.
The interviewer asks 'was this an accident that did not have to happen?'
Feynman says 'Yes it was. It was an accident that we had many many warnings that there was something wrong and that it might sooner or later go off. The warnings were disregarded'.
Interviewer: 'Disregarded out of incompetence, out of a faulty system, out of bad judgment, out of - for what reason?'
Feynman: 'I had some difficulty with that. I kind of imagine that something like a child that runs in the road and the parent is very upset and says it's very dangerous and the child comes back and says but nothing happened, and he runs out in the road again, several times, and the parent keeps saying it's dangerous and nothing happens. If the child's view that nothing happens is a clue that there was nothing going to happen, that's going to be an accident.'
Feynman says that NASA's management were like the child and the engineers were like the parent.
The interviewer asks who should be blamed and Feynman explains that blame may not really be a productive road and that the key question to answer is 'how do you educate the child?'
Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth.' (Feynman)
Richard Feynman lectured that 'The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth.' But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations - to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.'
Feynman points out 'Now, how can an experiment be 'wrong'? First, in a trivial way: if something is wrong with the apparatus that you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed, and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate.'
Feynman, NASA, nukes, CBRN, GMOs, etc etc, exit pursued by climate change.
Feynman's assertion about NASA was that the management was like a stubborn ignorant child and the scientists had failed to assert themselves the way a parent could over a child. "How do we educate the child?" Feynman wondered, looking for a road to solving the puzzle. Musing, at any rate.
Feynman's assertion about atom bombs and nuclear weapons was that (a) he had been immoral and wrong to continue working on the bomb when Germany had surrendered and the threat of Hitler's using atom bombs was gone. It was not built to combat kamikaze pilots, in the view of its scientists. (b) Feynman felt that after the war he noticed that 'nothing had changed' and people were behaving 'just as they always did' and he felt that the existence of nukes/atom-bombs in a world where people were still prone to the stupid and ignorant mistakes etc that they always had been was one with a very short future - soon we would all suffer the consequences of nuclear war, he felt.
In the hands of such incompetents, incidents such as Fukushima or the widespread ignorance of science's actual position, collectively, insofar as one can be said to exist at all, on 'GMOs', would also, it is my theory, worry Feynman significantly. People to question (by reading what they have said about such matters) about this stuff could include Chomsky.
Feynman spoke of being remorseful - by continuing to work on the bomb, which per se he hadn't really wanted to have anything to do with but shown that nazis could use such a bomb against them he understood that he had to protect society - but when Germany was defeated he should have stopped and he regretted not realising it at the time.
So returning to what Feynman would make of all the stupidness corporations are up to at the moment, along with militarised governments, the world over, I think it makes sense to refer to his criticism of NASA and his criticism of the existence of 'atom bombs' after the war was over. I think we should consider what he'd say about Fukushima and nuclear power in general, as well as his views on solar and genuinely 'clean' energy, with safety as the absolute priority always. Would he think we should restrict nuclear physics to established research facilities and find ways to keep corporate power away from decisions relating to such an important field of human knowledge?
The issue widens to so many others but above all climate change. What would Feynman's view be of the treatment of evidence by the world's corporations and thus by being in cahoots with them, the so-called 'liberal' media eg the Guardian or BBC or other broad sheets, generally speaking?
Feynman's views on titles and 'lapels' (military insignia) are an important thing to note also when deciding what the often-correct scientist would say about the way things are today. It doesn't matter who you are, what your name is, how clever you are, or anything else, when you make an assertion, what matters is whether or not it agrees with experiment/experience. Nothing else. That, in a nutshell, Feynman explains across the internet from beyond the grave to some 'small' but not insignificant audience, is the key to 'science'.
And remember also, reader, that snarks can be boojums. As Feynman points out, some imagine that << the same conditions always produce the same results >> when in reality we live in a "probablistic universe".
You know that a fixed percentage of the photons will reflect, you don't know which ones, you cannot in any instance at all predict whether it will be one of the photons to reflect or one which carries on through the glass or other reflective surface.
This means, Feynman explains, that all our notions about science basically get thrown out - the universe, he is at pains to tell us, is 'nutty'. "I don't understand it either", he says, the audience laughs, but only partly aware that they are laughing at science itself, with him. And that audience was far far more intelligent than today's audiences, and Feynman didn't even think much (intellectually) of THAT one, let alone the hyperconsumer masses of today. Corbyn protects 'the many' and Boris protects 'the few' - but nobody tries to make ANY of them, many or few, one iota less stupid, or shall we be euphemistic and say 'more intelligent'?