samedi 10 août 2019
Nagasaki
TARA ROSS . . . (August 9th)
On this day in 1945, Americans drop an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. It had been only three days since the bombing of Hiroshima.
Did you know that Nagasaki was not the original target? The intended target was an arsenal near the city of Kokura. In a twist of fate, American plans were changed by something as simple as the weather—and the stubborn refusal of smoke to drift away from Kokura. Early on August 9, the weather over the city was deemed acceptable, but Kokura was soon covered with smoke and haze. Matters became further complicated when the bomber began to run low on fuel as it circled the area.
It was decided to do one quick pass over Nagasaki before landing at the airfield at Okinawa. The clouds over Nagasaki weren’t too much better, but a break in the clouds allowed Captain Kermit K. Beahan to catch a quick glimpse of the city’s stadium. He had permission to bomb either city, so he decided to drop the bomb on Nagasaki.
One of his crew members later noted: “[T]here was no sense dragging the bomb home or dropping it in the ocean.”
The plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki produced an explosion 40 percent bigger than the uranium one dropped on Hiroshima.
The Department of Energy Office of History and Heritage Resources describes the effects: “Almost everything up to half a mile from ground zero was completely destroyed, including even the earthquake-hardened concrete structures that had sometimes survived at comparable distances at Hiroshima.”
To the extent that some damage was lesser than at Hiroshima, it was because of the steep hills surrounding the city. The force of the explosion was contained somewhat.
By the next day, Japan was ready to surrender on the condition that the “said Declaration does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler.” President Harry Truman ordered a halt to the atomic attacks while negotiations commenced. On August 12, the United States agreed to accept the surrender, but required that any future government of Japan be established by the “freely expressed will of the Japanese people.”
The Japanese government didn’t answer right away, and conventional bombings resumed. Throughout this time, the United States was preparing a third bomb, just in case it was needed. But it also did something else: The United States began dropping leaflets across Tokyo. The leaflets described the terms that had been offered for ending the war.
Finally, on August 15, the emperor made an announcement on public radio: Japan would surrender.
It had been almost 4 years since the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. But now World War II was finally coming to an end.
On this day in 1945, Americans drop an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. It had been only three days since the bombing of Hiroshima.
Did you know that Nagasaki was not the original target? The intended target was an arsenal near the city of Kokura. In a twist of fate, American plans were changed by something as simple as the weather—and the stubborn refusal of smoke to drift away from Kokura. Early on August 9, the weather over the city was deemed acceptable, but Kokura was soon covered with smoke and haze. Matters became further complicated when the bomber began to run low on fuel as it circled the area.
It was decided to do one quick pass over Nagasaki before landing at the airfield at Okinawa. The clouds over Nagasaki weren’t too much better, but a break in the clouds allowed Captain Kermit K. Beahan to catch a quick glimpse of the city’s stadium. He had permission to bomb either city, so he decided to drop the bomb on Nagasaki.
One of his crew members later noted: “[T]here was no sense dragging the bomb home or dropping it in the ocean.”
The plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki produced an explosion 40 percent bigger than the uranium one dropped on Hiroshima.
The Department of Energy Office of History and Heritage Resources describes the effects: “Almost everything up to half a mile from ground zero was completely destroyed, including even the earthquake-hardened concrete structures that had sometimes survived at comparable distances at Hiroshima.”
To the extent that some damage was lesser than at Hiroshima, it was because of the steep hills surrounding the city. The force of the explosion was contained somewhat.
By the next day, Japan was ready to surrender on the condition that the “said Declaration does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler.” President Harry Truman ordered a halt to the atomic attacks while negotiations commenced. On August 12, the United States agreed to accept the surrender, but required that any future government of Japan be established by the “freely expressed will of the Japanese people.”
The Japanese government didn’t answer right away, and conventional bombings resumed. Throughout this time, the United States was preparing a third bomb, just in case it was needed. But it also did something else: The United States began dropping leaflets across Tokyo. The leaflets described the terms that had been offered for ending the war.
Finally, on August 15, the emperor made an announcement on public radio: Japan would surrender.
It had been almost 4 years since the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. But now World War II was finally coming to an end.
Psychanalyse
C’est du pur charlatanisme. J’invente un système cohérent fermé et je fais rentrer les gens dedans pour les traiter sur une quinzaine d’années. Comme c’est long, il faut que ce soit très cher, ainsi le quidam espère toujours au bout de la 14e année que le transfert va le sauver.
jeudi 8 août 2019
Un président anormal
Il y a chez Macron cette provocation permanente et cette attirance pour le pervers. Pour les deux il éprouve une satisfaction morbide à l’imposer en chemise blanche manches retournées
Healthcare challenges
https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/debloquons-notre-systeme-de-soins-par-le-libre-choix-d-un-assureur-683830.html
Let's unblock our healthcare system by the free choice of an insurer
The unblocking of our healthcare system is at hand, through competition, like other countries in Europe.
By Guy-André Pelouze, MD, Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgeon
"Out of breath" is the leitmotiv of care actors. But the system is not in escheat. The state and its health insurance monopoly are more powerful than ever. The two decision-makers have large financial resources at 12% of GDP. But what does not work? What is the diagnosis?
From the scissors effect between the scarcity of the medical supply and the infinite free demand, from galloping bureaucratisation to digital un-preparation, from the expenditure authorized by the state by a goal rarely respected in the deficit, we understand the contradictions that affect the efficiency of our health care system. Two central questions arise.
Who is behind the structural changes that led to this chaos? Who is the sole actor of this system adrift?
Egalitarian Manicheism
It is easy to answer the first question but it is a taboo that forbids us to think. All these decisions are made by successive governments and their administration. An emblematic example of the number of students admitted to medicine; not only since the 1971 year of the first numerus clausus the state has never doubted but one continues to believe it, persevere diabolicum. Does this mean that our officials are bad? Of course not, not any more than those from across the Rhine or from beyond Leman. But that is too much embrace embraces. The French state wants to decide everything from Paris in an egalitarian Manicheism that loses it and destroys the fabric of care. The treatment is simple: a smarter state. The care system is in a way exceptional but it relates to the content of its mission and not to the exemption from the basic economic rules.
Auto-prescriptor Bureaucracy
The treatment of this over-regulation that feeds a self-writing bureaucracy of jobs is autonomy, massive deregulation and financial responsibility. There is a need for fewer administrative structures, fewer non-caring hospital jobs and a high level of management that starts with balanced accounts and tariff convergence. For ambulatory medicine, the contract is sufficient to regulate activities and demand. These contracts that the state will have framed by law but which will advantageously replace a single convention.
The answer to the second question is equally taboo. It is the administration of social security that false nose of the state called paritarianism without financial responsibility that is alone at the levers (262 billion in 2015). It must assume its responsibility in a triple failure to several billion: "vital" card reduced to a debit less bank card, an electronic medical record not shared because nonexistent and telemedicine reduced to videoconferences. The treatment, here too, is simple it is a certain amount of competition.
Security requires organizational innovation to converge existing resources and demand. According to his political inclination, one can resort to the competition of the "caisses" or to the opening of the health insurance to all the qualified actors because the innovation feeds on the differences. There is another benefit to competition, insurers in both cases will offer baskets of care. The insured will finally know what he pays and what is the content of the contract. He will have to insure himself for the major risk but he will be able to choose to save the part of the premium which reimburses the thermal cures, the transports, the daily allowances except for accident or serious illness, non-exhaustive list. Thus the decline in social security contributions will not be at the root of an increase in public debt but an increase in purchasing power. There will be clarification where there is collusion at the expense of the insured because of the complexity of the reimbursement rules and the inflation of premiums.
The electoral debates speak so little, while the release of our health care system is at hand like other countries in Europe.
Comments
Dr Guy-André Pelouze wrote on the 02/05/2017 at 10:05:
"Which system is advocated, that close to the US?" (Sic)
If you have read my article and if you know a little bit about the US care system you may not know that this is not the subject. On the other hand, it is curious at least that you answer yourself to this question by the USA whereas nothing allows advancing this answer. In reality, if you want at all costs to put simplifying labels (it is apparently your approach to complex issues) there are many countries in Europe where choosing an insurer is possible, one of the closest is Germany. The subject of this article is indeed the demonstration that choosing his insurer and the contract that goes with it allows adapting the offer to the demand. This is written in the paper: "the release of our healthcare system is at hand like other countries in Europe."
But back to France. For many French people, the health care system is blocked. This is the case in rural areas but also in urban areas at risk or in cities where the market price of renting business premises, a garage and a principal residence no longer allows for a financial balance. the practice of liberal medicine. In France, there is no longer any adaptation of supply and demand for care. This is very serious and the French are experiencing this decoupling while the situation will worsen in the coming years due to factors such as demographics (net entry of 200,000 people and decrease in the number of doctors); persistence of a numerus clausus, scarcity of liberal vocations; increase in the number of doctors in regulatory bodies; leakage of specialists because of the safety rates; net extension of the duration of studies.
Not to be aware of these shortcomings and to try to answer them by kicking in touch on the other side of the Atlantic shows an ideological bias that forbids thinking about the necessary changes. It has been a motivational goal for decades but today it is leading to disaster.
gfx wrote on 12/04/2017 at 18:51:
as it says Recoil below, health costs candy in the US "competition" system. the weight of health expenditure is the leading cause of bankruptcy of US households.
the Swiss "competition" system is also expensive. and France is ahead of Switzerland (and all other European countries) in seemingly effective care, according to the Eurostat study on avoidable deaths.
Report abusive content
Taking a step back written on 12/04/2017 at 17:52:
Which system is recommended, that close to the USA?
Small "accounting" details: do you know that Americans pay more for their health as a percentage of GDP (the USA is 17.1% in 2014 according to the World Bank)? Do you know that health care spending is lower as a percentage of GDP? The effectiveness of social security is much greater than that of private insurance (75% for Social Security and less than 50% for most insurances and mutuals). Indeed, not even very well managed (I concede), it saves advertising, sales, people who assess premiums case by case ... etc and of course the dividends.
It's not me who says it, it's official statistics (INSEE speaks)!
In fact this article responds to another economic problem: the calculation of GDP. If you give 1 euros to the security, it does not fit in the calculation of GDP, it is a "charge". If you give 1 euros to insurance, it is GDP and therefore "a wealth creation". Even if the insurance never heals you. And of course a capitalist system will always push the second solution because in this case a shareholder can put the euro in the pocket as a bonus or dividend. Ask yourself the question: who is the one who pays the one who wrote this article?
So if your logic is: "I want to pay less and have more care" do not be fooled. You would pay more if you were in the US (except for the better-off of us of course but nothing prevents them from going).
Public Health Response on 12/04/2017 at 22:25:
Completely agree with Take Back @. Social security costs 6% in management fees against 26% for complementary mutual or insurance companies, defended by the author of the article.
It is true that collective social insurance is included in the compulsory contributions while private social insurance does not enter.
In Germany, all incomes over 4000e / month can take private health insurance and thus not pay contributions in the public system. This explains a good part of the difference in the compulsory contributions between France and Germany. This one having 8 points less compulsory levies compared to France. But it is a statistical artifice, for those who contribute to private insurance, it is no longer compulsory levies but it is indeed compulsory expenditure.
This plea of the author of the article for private insurance is quite suspicious. This reminds me Fillon proposing in his program, the transfer of the care of current care of the sécu to the complementary (and thus partial privatization of security) and at the same time we learned that the main client of the consulting company 2F Fillon, was Axa! . All this feels the conflict of interest.
How to avoid disease and live a whole life
It is not a treatment because of treatment is for a disease , it is not a drug because a drug is a poison It is not to care because care is needed when you are weak, It is you and your microbiome in your eco niche
1) Sun/fresh and windy air/outdoor
2/ vision connection with the universe, meditation, Sleep, dream
2) aleatory movement and changing type of exercise
3) water, fasting and when hungry eat what you need
5/ sex, love, kindness
1) Sun/fresh and windy air/outdoor
2/ vision connection with the universe, meditation, Sleep, dream
2) aleatory movement and changing type of exercise
3) water, fasting and when hungry eat what you need
5/ sex, love, kindness
mercredi 7 août 2019
Quand l'éclaireur fou fouille nos âmes
Le problème est que nous cherchons quelqu'un pour vieillir ensemble, alors que le secret est de trouver quelqu'un avec qui rester enfant. ~
Charles Bukowski.
Charles Bukowski.
mardi 6 août 2019
2+2=
FREEDOM
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell (1984)
The phrase "two plus two equals five" ("2 + 2 = 5") is a slogan used in propaganda, literature or other media, most notably the 1949 dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell. In the novel, it is used as an example of an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans promoted by the Party in the novel.
Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, that makes it true. The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls one's own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink ("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once").
Self-evident truth and self-evident falsehood[edit]
The equation 2 + 2 = 4 has been proverbial as the type of an obvious truth since the 16th century, and appears as such in Johann Wigand's 1562 De Neutralibus et Mediis Libellus: "That twice two are four, a man may not lawfully make a doubt of it, because that manner of knowledge is grauen [graven] into mannes [man's] nature."
René Descartes' realm of pure ideas considers that self-evident idea such as two plus two equals four may, in fact, have no reality outside the mind. According to the First Meditation (1641), the standard of truth is self-evidence of clear and distinct ideas. However, Descartes questions the correspondence of these ideas to reality.
In his play Dom Juan (1682), Molière's title character is asked what he believes. He answers that he believes that two plus two equals four.
The mirror-image of this—that 2 + 2 = 5 is the archetypical untruth—is attested at least as early as 1728. Ephraim Chambers' Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, published in that year, follows its definition of the word absurd with this illustrative example: "Thus, a proposition would be absurd, that should affirm, that two and two make five; or that should deny 'em to make four."[5] Similarly Samuel Johnson said in 1779 that "You may have a reason why two and two should make five, but they will still make but four."[2]
The first known sympathetic reference to the equation 2 + 2 = 5 appears in an 1813 letter by Lord Byron to his soon-to-be wife Anabella Milbanke in which he writes, "I know that two and two make four—& should be glad to prove it too if I could—though I must say if by any sort of process I could convert 2 & 2 into five it would give me much greater pleasure."
An 1895 collection of short stories by French writer Alphonse Allais was published under the title 2 + 2 = 5
Although the phrase "2 + 2 = 5" had earlier been used to indicate an absurdity in general, its use within a political setting is first attested at the dawning of the French Revolution. Abbé Sieyès, in his What Is the Third Estate? (1789), mocked the fact that the Estates-General gave disproportionate voting power to the aristocracy and the clergy in with the following analogy: "Consequently if it be claimed that under the French constitution, 200,000 individuals out of 26 million citizens constitute two-thirds of the common will, only one comment is possible: it is a claim that two and two make five."
Honoré de Balzac's novel Séraphîta (1834) contains the following passage:
Thus, you will never find in all nature two identical objects; in the natural order, therefore, two and two can never make four, for, to attain that result, we must combine units that are exactly alike, and you know that it is impossible to find two leaves alike on the same tree, or two identical individuals in the same species of tree.
That axiom of your numeration, false in visible nature, is false likewise in the invisible universe of your abstractions, where the same variety is found in your ideas, which are the objects of the visible world extended by their interrelations; indeed, the differences are more striking there than elsewhere.
Victor Hugo used this phrase in 1852. He objected to the way in which the vast majority of French voters had backed Napoleon III, endorsing the way liberal values had been ignored in Napoleon III's coup.
In his 1852 pamphlet, Napoléon le Petit, he writes: "Now, get seven million five hundred thousand votes to declare that two and two make five, that the straight line is the longest road, that the whole is less than its part; get it declared by eight millions, by ten millions, by a hundred millions of votes, you will not have advanced a step."
Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky is known to be influenced by Hugo and his Napoléon le Petit.[10] In Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground (published in 1864), the protagonist implicitly supports the idea of two times two making five, spending several paragraphs considering the implications of rejecting the statement "two times two makes four". His purpose is not ideological, however. Instead, he proposes that it is the free will to choose or reject the logical as well as the illogical that makes mankind human. He adds: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."
The idea seems to have been significant to Russian literature and culture. Ivan Turgenev wrote in Prayer (1881), one of his Poems in Prose "Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: Great God, grant that twice two be not four." Also similar sentiments are said to be among Leo Tolstoy's last words when urged to convert back to the Russian Orthodox Church: "Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Even turn-of-the-century Russian newspaper columnists used the phrase to suggest the moral confusion of the age. Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin in God and the State (1882), classifies Deism as: "Imagine a philosophical vinegar sauce of the most opposed systems, a mixture of Fathers of the Church, scholastic philosophers, Descartes and Pascal, Kant and Scottish psychologists, all this a superstructure on the divine and innate ideas of Plato, and covered up with a layer of Hegelian immanence accompanied, of course, by an ignorance, as contemptuous as it is complete, of natural science, and proving just as two times two make five; the existence of a personal God." In The Reaction In Germany (1842) Bakunin compares the behavior of Compromising Positivists to the one of Juste-milieu at the beginning of the July Revolution quoting a French journal: "The Left says, 2 times 2 are 4; the Right, 2 times 2 are 6; and the Juste-milieu says, 2 times 2 are 5".
Deux et deux font cinq (2 + 2 = 5) was the title of a short story collection by French absurdist writer Alphonse Allais published in 1895. Similarly, a 1920 art manifesto by Russian imaginist poet Vadim Shershenevich was titled 2 × 2 = 5.
The Soviet Union began its first five-year economic plan in 1928. Its goals were ambitious from the start, seeking the immediate transformation of the USSR into an industrial nation. The consequences for underperformance during the plan were severe; managers who admitted missing their targets, even as those targets were revised upward, could be charged with the crime of 'wrecking'. After statistics from the first two years indicated that the plan was ahead of schedule, Joseph Stalin announced that the plan would be completed in four years. Propagandist Iakov Guminer supported this campaign with a 1931 poster reading "Arithmetic of an alternative plan: 2+2 plus the enthusiasm of the workers=5". Stalin declared the plan a success at the beginning of 1933, noting the creation of several heavy industries. George Orwell may have been influenced by this poster.
George Orwell had used the concept before publishing Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949. During his career at the BBC, he became familiar with the methods of Nazi propaganda. In his essay "Looking Back on the Spanish War",[23] published in 1943 (six years before the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four), Orwell wrote:
Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. ... The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened" – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.
In the view of most of Orwell's biographers,[citation needed] the main source for this was Assignment in Utopia by Eugene Lyons, an account of his time in the Soviet Union. This contains a chapter "Two Plus Two Equals Five", that referred to Guminer's slogan.
However, Orwell spoke of the Nazis, so he may have been making reference to the Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who once, in a debatably hyperbolic display of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, declared, "If the Führer wants it, two and two makes five!"
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell writes:
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
"Arithmetic of an alternative plan: 2+2 plus the enthusiasm of the workers=5" (Soviet propaganda poster, Iakov Guminer, 1931)
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell (1984)
The phrase "two plus two equals five" ("2 + 2 = 5") is a slogan used in propaganda, literature or other media, most notably the 1949 dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell. In the novel, it is used as an example of an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans promoted by the Party in the novel.
Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare "two plus two equals five" as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, that makes it true. The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals, O'Brien, says of the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls one's own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink ("Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once").
Self-evident truth and self-evident falsehood[edit]
The equation 2 + 2 = 4 has been proverbial as the type of an obvious truth since the 16th century, and appears as such in Johann Wigand's 1562 De Neutralibus et Mediis Libellus: "That twice two are four, a man may not lawfully make a doubt of it, because that manner of knowledge is grauen [graven] into mannes [man's] nature."
René Descartes' realm of pure ideas considers that self-evident idea such as two plus two equals four may, in fact, have no reality outside the mind. According to the First Meditation (1641), the standard of truth is self-evidence of clear and distinct ideas. However, Descartes questions the correspondence of these ideas to reality.
In his play Dom Juan (1682), Molière's title character is asked what he believes. He answers that he believes that two plus two equals four.
The mirror-image of this—that 2 + 2 = 5 is the archetypical untruth—is attested at least as early as 1728. Ephraim Chambers' Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, published in that year, follows its definition of the word absurd with this illustrative example: "Thus, a proposition would be absurd, that should affirm, that two and two make five; or that should deny 'em to make four."[5] Similarly Samuel Johnson said in 1779 that "You may have a reason why two and two should make five, but they will still make but four."[2]
The first known sympathetic reference to the equation 2 + 2 = 5 appears in an 1813 letter by Lord Byron to his soon-to-be wife Anabella Milbanke in which he writes, "I know that two and two make four—& should be glad to prove it too if I could—though I must say if by any sort of process I could convert 2 & 2 into five it would give me much greater pleasure."
An 1895 collection of short stories by French writer Alphonse Allais was published under the title 2 + 2 = 5
Although the phrase "2 + 2 = 5" had earlier been used to indicate an absurdity in general, its use within a political setting is first attested at the dawning of the French Revolution. Abbé Sieyès, in his What Is the Third Estate? (1789), mocked the fact that the Estates-General gave disproportionate voting power to the aristocracy and the clergy in with the following analogy: "Consequently if it be claimed that under the French constitution, 200,000 individuals out of 26 million citizens constitute two-thirds of the common will, only one comment is possible: it is a claim that two and two make five."
Honoré de Balzac's novel Séraphîta (1834) contains the following passage:
Thus, you will never find in all nature two identical objects; in the natural order, therefore, two and two can never make four, for, to attain that result, we must combine units that are exactly alike, and you know that it is impossible to find two leaves alike on the same tree, or two identical individuals in the same species of tree.
That axiom of your numeration, false in visible nature, is false likewise in the invisible universe of your abstractions, where the same variety is found in your ideas, which are the objects of the visible world extended by their interrelations; indeed, the differences are more striking there than elsewhere.
Victor Hugo used this phrase in 1852. He objected to the way in which the vast majority of French voters had backed Napoleon III, endorsing the way liberal values had been ignored in Napoleon III's coup.
In his 1852 pamphlet, Napoléon le Petit, he writes: "Now, get seven million five hundred thousand votes to declare that two and two make five, that the straight line is the longest road, that the whole is less than its part; get it declared by eight millions, by ten millions, by a hundred millions of votes, you will not have advanced a step."
Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky is known to be influenced by Hugo and his Napoléon le Petit.[10] In Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground (published in 1864), the protagonist implicitly supports the idea of two times two making five, spending several paragraphs considering the implications of rejecting the statement "two times two makes four". His purpose is not ideological, however. Instead, he proposes that it is the free will to choose or reject the logical as well as the illogical that makes mankind human. He adds: "I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too."
The idea seems to have been significant to Russian literature and culture. Ivan Turgenev wrote in Prayer (1881), one of his Poems in Prose "Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: Great God, grant that twice two be not four." Also similar sentiments are said to be among Leo Tolstoy's last words when urged to convert back to the Russian Orthodox Church: "Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six." Even turn-of-the-century Russian newspaper columnists used the phrase to suggest the moral confusion of the age. Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin in God and the State (1882), classifies Deism as: "Imagine a philosophical vinegar sauce of the most opposed systems, a mixture of Fathers of the Church, scholastic philosophers, Descartes and Pascal, Kant and Scottish psychologists, all this a superstructure on the divine and innate ideas of Plato, and covered up with a layer of Hegelian immanence accompanied, of course, by an ignorance, as contemptuous as it is complete, of natural science, and proving just as two times two make five; the existence of a personal God." In The Reaction In Germany (1842) Bakunin compares the behavior of Compromising Positivists to the one of Juste-milieu at the beginning of the July Revolution quoting a French journal: "The Left says, 2 times 2 are 4; the Right, 2 times 2 are 6; and the Juste-milieu says, 2 times 2 are 5".
Deux et deux font cinq (2 + 2 = 5) was the title of a short story collection by French absurdist writer Alphonse Allais published in 1895. Similarly, a 1920 art manifesto by Russian imaginist poet Vadim Shershenevich was titled 2 × 2 = 5.
The Soviet Union began its first five-year economic plan in 1928. Its goals were ambitious from the start, seeking the immediate transformation of the USSR into an industrial nation. The consequences for underperformance during the plan were severe; managers who admitted missing their targets, even as those targets were revised upward, could be charged with the crime of 'wrecking'. After statistics from the first two years indicated that the plan was ahead of schedule, Joseph Stalin announced that the plan would be completed in four years. Propagandist Iakov Guminer supported this campaign with a 1931 poster reading "Arithmetic of an alternative plan: 2+2 plus the enthusiasm of the workers=5". Stalin declared the plan a success at the beginning of 1933, noting the creation of several heavy industries. George Orwell may have been influenced by this poster.
George Orwell had used the concept before publishing Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949. During his career at the BBC, he became familiar with the methods of Nazi propaganda. In his essay "Looking Back on the Spanish War",[23] published in 1943 (six years before the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four), Orwell wrote:
Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. ... The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened" – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.
In the view of most of Orwell's biographers,[citation needed] the main source for this was Assignment in Utopia by Eugene Lyons, an account of his time in the Soviet Union. This contains a chapter "Two Plus Two Equals Five", that referred to Guminer's slogan.
However, Orwell spoke of the Nazis, so he may have been making reference to the Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who once, in a debatably hyperbolic display of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, declared, "If the Führer wants it, two and two makes five!"
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell writes:
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
"Arithmetic of an alternative plan: 2+2 plus the enthusiasm of the workers=5" (Soviet propaganda poster, Iakov Guminer, 1931)
Objective reality does not exist
V.I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1927), 145.
Les zones sans médecins sécu s'étendent
https://www-lesechos-fr.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.lesechos.fr/amp/1122289?fbclid=IwAR0DNuNQh-mBrE_0hhAlaEvZvOXvsBvcBEWeJVlyvoa9zRcKTaz-6x4HBow
Une des solutions est que les médecins non sécu s'y installent.
Une des solutions est que les médecins non sécu s'y installent.
lundi 5 août 2019
Constantine, Algérie le 5/08/1934 un pogrom en France où meurent 27 juifs
Le 5 août 1934, il y a 85 ans jour pour jour, 27 juifs dont 5 enfants de quelques mois à 10 ans - 25 étaient citoyens français- sont assassinés dans ce que l'on appelle communément le pogrom de Constantine, alors chef-lieu d’un département français. Pendant toute une journée, la foule musulmane pille, frappe, égorge, tire sans que les autorités françaises n'interviennent ou que très sommairement.
Attal Michel, agriculteur, 40 ans -- Fracture du crâne,
Attal Salomon, bijoutier, 60 ans, -- Fracture du crâne,
Bedoucha Avraham, 50 ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Bedoucha Avraham, 50 ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Bentata Jacob, horloger, 40 ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Chemla Lucien, 30 ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Chemla Lucien, 30 ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Dadoun Maurice, négociant, 30ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Dadoun Gilbert, négociant, 25 ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Dadoun Gilbert, négociant, 25 ans, -- Cou sectionné,
Guedj Elie, 30 ans, -- Fracture du crâne,
Guedj Henri 60 ans, -- Fracture du crâne,
Guedj Henri 60 ans, -- Fracture du crâne,
Guedj Salomon Assassiné au Hammam
Halimi Albert, 20 ans tué d'une balle dans le cœur…
Halimi Albert, 20 ans tué d'une balle dans le cœur…
Halimi Alphonse, 35 ans, négociant, Cou sectionné
Nabet Raymond, 23 ans, décédé des suites de ses blessures
Nabet Raymond, 23 ans, décédé des suites de ses blessures
Zerbib Moise, dit Cherqui, 60 ans, Cou sectionné,
Mlle Attali Ausélia, 24 ans, sage femme, fracture du crâne,
Mlle Attali Ausélia, 24 ans, sage femme, fracture du crâne,
Mlle Guedj Blanche, 25ans, Cou sectionné,
Mme Halimi Alphonse, 40 ans, Cou sectionné,
Mme Halimi Alphonse, 40 ans, Cou sectionné,
Mme Zerbib Zaira, 40 ans, décédée des suites de ses blessures,
Mme Zerdoun Rosa, 40 ans, Cou sectionné,
Mme Zerdoun Rosa, 40 ans, Cou sectionné,
Mme Zerdoun Mouni, 60 ans, Cou sectionné,
Attali Alexandre, 14 ans, Fracture du crâne,
Attali Alexandre, 14 ans, Fracture du crâne,
Halimi Madi, Coups de couteaux,
Halimi Jeanine, 8 ans, Cou sectionné,
Halimi Jeanine, 8 ans, Cou sectionné,
Zerdoun Jacqueline, 8 ans, Fracture du crâne,
Zerbib Huguette, 4 ans, cou sectionné
Zerbib Huguette, 4 ans, cou sectionné
Autologous organ production by chimeras: near the limits
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02275-3
https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/30/ciencia/1564512111_936966.html?utm_campaign=the_download.unpaid.engagement&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=75295087&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8yklOeFWD5iWyLACOOh_8ty5CqEtfYHIysZwgV-1AGrSndLqkjG5rv0JFh_Lj6ArmBPXekAloVMfogv0-bni5n2Hf52e6aVaehoAldVwOvOSHUAsY&_hsmi=75295087
https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/30/ciencia/1564512111_936966.html?utm_campaign=the_download.unpaid.engagement&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=75295087&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8yklOeFWD5iWyLACOOh_8ty5CqEtfYHIysZwgV-1AGrSndLqkjG5rv0JFh_Lj6ArmBPXekAloVMfogv0-bni5n2Hf52e6aVaehoAldVwOvOSHUAsY&_hsmi=75295087
Les analphabètes du bouleversement des sciences
"Les analphabètes du 21ème siècle, ne seront pas ceux, qui ne savent ni lire, ni écrire.
Ce seront ceux, qui ne savent pas apprendre, désapprendre, et réapprendre."
Alvin Toffler
Misattributed
Tomorrow's illiterate will not be the man who can't read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn.
Psychologist Herbert Gerjuoy as quoted by Alvin Toffler in Future Shock (1970), ch. 18
It is right:
"Psychologist Herbert Gerjuoy of the Human Resources Research Organization phrases it simply: "The new education must teach the individual how to classify and reclassify information, how to evaluate its veracity, how to change categories when necessary, how to move from the concrete to the abstract and back, how to look at problems from a new direction—how to teach himself. Tomorrow's illiterate will not be the man who can't read; he will be the man who has not learned how to learn."