Feminists demand gender quotas for bodies buried in Panthéon

A 2006 article about the feminist totalitarianism attracted hundreds of Slovak visitors today because it was linked to in a discussion under a remarkable Slovak newspaper article about some incredible demands by the French feminists.



The story sounded like a hoax but Reuters was among the many well-known news agencies that ran the story which made me believe that in spite of its nearly comical content, the information is legitimate.

Panthéon, Paris was built sometime in the middle of the 18th century (I've been there once but that's enough). Between 1791 and 2011, 74 French figures were buried there. There are two women among them: the double Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie and Sophie Berthelot. The latter is there only because she joined her chemist spouse Marcellin Berthelot; I don't know either of the couple.




So there will be an online poll. To make things even more brutal, it won't be a poll about whether this preposterous idea is tolerable. It will be directly a poll about the women who will be relocated there. President Hollande apparently supports this breathtaking rubbish. They will probably start with something like five new female tenants.




To make things even more absurd, the monument bears the inscription "To its great men, a grateful fatherland" ("Aux grands hommes, la patrie reconnaissante"). I wonder whether the word "hommes" will eventually be rewritten to match the new composition. Incidentally, because of the "hommes" description, even Marie Curie – who may be argued to have surpassed her husband – is there primarily as a wife.

You could find some OK enough women who are missing there – but many more great men are missing, too. This list of omissions includes Balzac, Stendhal, Michelet, Proust, Exupéry, Sartre, Camus. I could add tons of top mathematicians such as Cauchy, Laplace, Galois. They're missing, too.

The shameless feminist group "Osez le féminisme" (Dare to be feminist) and its painful apologists want nothing less than to rewrite the history. It's just a historical fact that the great people of France who died in the aforementioned period (and it was an enlightened period from all sensible points of view you may think of) were predominantly men. Before you dare to be feminist and disagree, you should tell me who were the real female counterparts of Voltaire, Russeau, Dumas, Hugo, and (except for Marie Curie) Lagrange, Carnot, Pierre Curie, Langevin.

Let me help you: there have been no (other) true counterparts who would be in the same league.

To impose the quotas really means to bury some women who will belong to a demonstrably lower category than the average men who are already buried there. Where does it stop? A group of Algerians in France may also demand to bury a dozen of dark-skinned French citizens. Homosexualist NGOs will demand a higher fraction of gays. And so on and so on. Soon or later, the facility runs out of space and people like Lagrange will have to be thrown somewhere to the Seine river – because of women and Arabs you have never heard of who were pushed there by despicable political groups for which their own petty, egotist group interests are vastly more important than the greatest mankind's achievements.

Similar proposals open many inequivalent questions. One of them is whether the process of burying has been meritocratic in character since 1791. Well, it could have been imperfect but it was surely free of outrageous interventions by NGOs who would openly insist on burying (or not burying) people from a group for purely ideological reasons.

Another question is whether the burying should be meritocratic at all. It should – it's what gives the actual weight and importance to Panthéon and many other facilities and institutions. An institution deciding non-meritocratically will inevitably lose credibility. The feminist movement may benefit but the Panthéon and all of France will lose greatly.

A third question is whether the overwhelming dominance of men in Panthéon was just a special feature of the period (1791-2013) or whether the gender composition will change in the future (well, "would" change in the future because we're now told that the era of meritocracy is over). Well, I would personally bet it won't (wouldn't...) change much. But if it will change, it will be thanks to the work by great women who will do things comparable to Voltaire, Lagrange, and Curie and not due to the work by whining feminists who want to enjoy advantages with no work or achievements, just by organizing guerilla groups and by screaming that they're entitled to enjoy the same accolades as the greatest men in the French history.

I urge the husbands or fathers of the women in the feminist NGOs to spank them really vigorously because that's what they actually should be entitled to.

Read More

America spying on Germany, EU

An ugly image of a double-faced, hypocritical America emerges

Off-topic, philosopher's birthday: One of the greatest polymaths of the history, Gottfried von Leibniz, was born on July 1st, 1646. See this biography written in 2008. His father, a professor of moral philosophy in Leipzig, East of Germany (who was half-German, half-Sorbian i.e. Slavic: I couldn't understand a Sorbian song, looks like a countryside Czech dialect pronoucation of Polish words inspired by some Yugoslav speakers), died when Gottfried was six. From that moment on, he had access to the dad's huge library and was affected by his mother's teachings. He wrote often valuable things in dozens of disciplines but his standards and ingenuity in natural sciences couldn't match Newton's.

Edward Snowden hasn't been assassinated by the U.S. government yet so he is starting to make some real impact, unfortunately a negative one so far. The media such as the Guardian told us about the anger in Europe that erupted after some European countries' officials were shown documents indicating that Prism is spying on EU in general and Germany in particular:

Berlin accuses Washington of cold war tactics over snooping

The extremely promising Euro-American free-trade pact has been threatened after we learned that half a billion of phone calls, text messages, and e-mails are tapped by the U.S. every month. I can't really imagine how this huge amount of information may be effectively monitored, how many (invisible?) people the U.S. intelligence services are employing etc.



It would be great if people kept their heads cool because the trade pact could be a great thing and if they tried to see all the things in the context – every major power is spying on someone and Snowden actually indicated that the U.K. is more brutal in this respect than the U.S., a subtlety that the Guardian and others fail to mention – but on the other hand, I won't hide that I am kind of troubled by the revelations, too.

I generally like the Americans' character but this story highlights some of its darker sides including an unmatched level of hypocrisy, a hardwired hardcore centralization sentiment, and a generally poor understanding of (and respect for) other nations' culture and inner working. I will get to these points momentarily.




The NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium were the starting point for the NSA to obtain some EU politicians' (and many other people's) sensitive data in an unfriendly way. The offices of the European Union have been a major target. Well, let me say that these Eurobastards should be monitored – but they should be monitored by the European citizens because the European citizens are those who are affected by the Eurobastards' acts most intensely.

The NSA hasn't told us anything about these acts – without Snowden, we wouldn't even know that the spying was going on – so it is hard to present the U.S. spies' behavior as a friendly one even if I dislike most tendencies in the EU today.




But Germany is the main targeted nation state. The American scrutiny of Germany was elevated to a new level sometime in 2010 – clearly during Obama's tenure. In fact, Germany was placed in the same box as China, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia while the English-speaking countries such as the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were included in the less monitored, more friendly category. It is hard to convince oneself that this surprising categorization of Germany occurred because the U.S. services haven't detected the violent resignation of Adolf Hitler as the German chancellor yet.

All these revelations are worrisome because they're so hostile. It isn't hard to understand that stealing half a billion of secret messages from a nation every month isn't exactly a friendly behavior. But aside from the intrinsic hostility and the lack of trust, the documents unmask some troubling aspects of Obama's America's thinking – and perhaps America's thinking in general.

First, you can't really believe current American officials – and perhaps other Americans – when they praise you as a great ally and friend. In particular, Obama has repeatedly praised Germany as an extraordinary ally. He did so a few days ago. But even if you return to November 2009, a moment a few months before the new wave of spying began (and a moment when it was probably already under construction), he said things like:

"I should just note that Germany has been an extraordinarily strong ally on a whole host of international issues," Obama said. "Chancellor Merkel has been an extraordinary leader on the issue of climate change [oops]. And the United States, Germany, and countries around the world I think are all beginning to recognize why it is so important that we work in common in order to stem the potential catastrophe that could result if we continue to see global warming continuing unabated [blah blah blah]."

He has always had a big mouth but a sensible person just can't take his words seriously. These comments don't apply just to his remarks about the friendship.

America has been among the most vocal defenders of the preposterous meme that the ethnically, culturally, and historically defined nations and their interests belong to the past. We may hear this total rubbish all the time – after all, nations are defined by their territory and values only, and so on. But when you look under the surface, you may see who are the "real" allies and who are not. The "real" allies just happen to be those who speak the same language. A coincidence? I don't think so.

Also, America repeatedly claims that individual citizens and all the ethnic groups are participating in the decision-making process. That's how America – according to its public proclamations – imagines the mechanism of the decision-making process, at least in democracies. However, as soon as you look under the lid, you see something entirely, entirely different. The U.S. agencies are literally obsessed by the (fundamentally misguided) question "who is really controlling Europe". So we have learned that they have decided that some politicians in Brussels and Berlin have this power.

It's just amazing. This obsession breathtakingly contrasts with the publicly available proclamations, with America's declared will to help the oppressed nations and ethnic minorities to decide about their fate. In reality, the power in Europe isn't as centralized as the naive, geography-challenged folks in the U.S. agencies seem to imagine. Most political decisions are still being made at the national level. This is true even (or especially?) when it comes to the foreign policy issues.

Germans represent about 1/6 of the EU population (the most populous single nation) and Germany's contribution to the European GDP (22%) is somewhat (a little bit) larger than that, much like Germany's contribution to the power and decision-making in the EU (30%?). But it's just nowhere near 100 percent. Germany's opinions may be correlated with the ultimate decisions by the EU in a percentage of cases that may approach 100 percent but that doesn't mean that Germany is actually behind this correlation. In most cases, it just means that other EU countries or politicians agree with those in Germany and Germany agrees with them – in a balanced way.

At any rate, the revelations do reinforce the picture in which a majority of the Americans – including most of the bureaucrats in the intelligence services – are just too stupid and too disrespectful when it comes to foreign countries and the idea that Europe is composed of dozens of largely independent nations seems just too difficult for them to grasp. They're obsessed by the idea to simplify this complex world and look for a framework in which the political arrangement of Europe is fully analogous to the arrangement of the U.S. Well, it's not! American spies may spend decades by the search for Henry Kissinger's notorious and proverbial "one telephone number of Europe" but after they penetrate through trillions of telephone calls, they won't find anything because there is no single telephone number of Europe.

Politicians from many European countries are demanding explanations. I don't think that there's much to explain here. The stories are almost certainly true. It's pretty normal for countries to spy on others which is the actual explanation why America is doing it, too. We shouldn't investigate whether the U.S. spies on Europe – it clearly does. Instead, people should try to find out who else may be spying because some of the analogous information that we weren't shown yet may be much more dangerous for us.

To summarize, the very fact that Prism has targeted the communication in Europe isn't too surprising to me. The detailed ideology – ideas about the way how Europe and the world do operate and how they should operate – seem more troublesome to me. At any rate, a sensible person should learn that big words about friendship, equality of nations, and democracy spoken by folks like Barack Obama – and his very smile – shouldn't be taken seriously. In your real decisions, all these things should be ignored. While Obama himself has won the 2008 and 2013 elections as the ultimate king and symbol of hypocrisy and the search for the most politically correct, kitschy image (and yes, something as irrelevant as his colorful racial background was the main fad that was helping him to win both recent elections), I am afraid that these revelations tell us about the character of many more people than just Barack Obama.

And that's the memo.

Read More

Augustin-Louis Cauchy: an anniversary

By the number of mathematical papers he wrote, Augustin-Louis Cauchy was second just to Leonhard Euler. As many college freshmen may testify, more theorems and concepts in mathematics were named after Cauchy than anyone else. And a conservative theoretical physicist shouldn't omit a CV of Cauchy because Cauchy was... well... very conservative!

He died on May 23rd, 1857, i.e. exactly 156 years ago. But before he managed to do that, he had to do many other things. For example, he had to be born – in August 1789, just a month after Bastille was stormed by a crowd on the street, a mess we often call the beginning of the French Revolution.




Louis François Cauchy, i.e. Cauchy's father, had really nothing to do with this mess. He was a high official in the Parisian police before the revolution took over (during the "New Regime"). During the Reign of Communist Terror in 1794, when Cauchy was five, the family had to move to Arcueil. Things got safer when Robespierre – a guy who worked to transform bourgeoisie to a gang of leftwingers – was finally executed in 1794 and the family could return. When Napoleon took over 5 years later, Cauchy's father returned to police.

He was working directly under another high-tier policeman called Pierre-Simon Laplace who is today known, ehm, as a top mathematician. Joseph Louis Lagrange was well-known to the Cauchy family, too.




In fact, Lagrange advised Cauchy's father to enroll his son into the Central School of Pantheon. And no, Lagrange didn't want Cauchy to learn some proper mathematics. Due to uncle Lagrange's advices, Cauchy was supposed to learn classical languages and humanities. And he has won many prices in Latin and humanities, indeed. But despite the attempts by Lagrange to direct young Cauchy to this sissies' stuff, he chose an engineering career. In 1802, he scored among top 1% of the applicants to École Polytechnique and was accepted. He had some problems with the military-style rules in the school but he finished the school when he was 18, with the highest honors, and continued with civil engineering at the School for Bridges and Roads.

When he was 21, he already started to work as an engineer as well as a manager at something that Napoleon intended to become a naval base, Cherbourg. He had enough time to work on mathematical papers, anyway. His first two manuscripts on polyhedra were accepted; the third one on conic sections was rejected.

When he was 23, he realized he was overworked and the engineering job sucked, so he returned to Paris. He formally remained an engineer but was working for the ministry of interior and was on an unpaid sick leave etc. More importantly, he would work on higher-order algebraic equations, symmetric groups, symmetric functions, and the other Galois-like stuff (Évariste Galois himself was just an infant at that moment!).

In 1815, Napoleon was defeated in Waterloo – just to be sure, the place is very far from the Perimeter Institute – and Bourbon king Louis XVIII led the restoration attempts. So at the Academy of Sciences, mathematician Gaspard Monge and thermodynamics pioneer Lazare Carnot had to be fired for political reasons while Cauchy could have been hired for the same reasons. ;-)

Cauchy accepted but because a big part of the academic establishment was already composed of politically correct, left-wing activists, the reaction of his peers to his acceptance was harsh. He earned many enemies. In 1815, Cauchy could finally quit the engineering job and take the professor chair at École Polytechnique after Louis Poinsot who left for health reasons. Before that, Cauchy had already proven Fermat's polygonal number theorems. Many liberal activists could have been fired from the Bonapartist school while conservative Cauchy – whom Wikipedia calls "reactionary" – could be promoted.

He was living with his parents when he was 28 but his dad found a wife for him – a babe from a family that published most of Cauchy's writings. They had two daughters. Incidentally, Cauchy had brothers who became lawyers and one of them partly a mathematician, too.

As a mathematical factory, Cauchy flourished in the mid-to-late 1820s because he was lucky to live in a conservative political atmosphere. In 1824, Louis XVIII died and was superseded by an even more right-wing king, Charles X, which made Cauchy even more happy and more productive. He was also teaching at several schools simultaneously.

Things changed discontinuously in 1830. Charles X had to flee and the leadership was hijacked by a non-Bourbon king Louis-Philippe. Riots involving ignorant students took place near Cauchy's home. It had to be really annoying. Cauchy's lust to publish papers went nearly to zero – it's similar to my year around 2005 except that I had to be satisfied with a "relative conservative" in the form of Larry Summers who was finally removed in 2006. ;-)

Cauchy went to exile. In Switzerland, they still wanted him to endorse the new regime. He refused so he lost all positions he had in France. He went to Turin, Italy in 1831 and became a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.



Prague in 1830

In 1833, Cauchy moved to Prague in my homeland, the Austrian Empire ;-), to become a tutor of Henri of Artois, a spoiled brat from an aristocratic family. Back in Paris, Cauchy was already a bad lecturer and his teaching style resembled that of Sheldon Cooper. These difficulties escalated with young Henri who had no respect for Cauchy, mathematics, or anything of the sort, so even though Cauchy took the job very seriously, it was a disaster. The two main results of this tutoring was that an irrelevant Henri became a life-long math hater; and Cauchy hadn't done any research for 5 years. In 1838, he returned to Paris with his family that had been accompanying him in Prague since 1834.

He couldn't return to teaching – formally because he refused to endorse the new regime – but he badly wanted to be formally recognized by the science establishment in Paris again. He decided to get "there" though the Bureau to Determine the Longitude. He didn't need the oath so he was elected but the king was refusing to approve him for 4 years in which Cauchy was getting no money and had no academic rights (e.g. submitting papers). After that, Cauchy was eliminated altogether and replaced by Poinsot. Note that the opposite replacement was discussed above.

Throughout the 19th century, France was converging towards the separation of state and church, entities that Cauchy always wanted to unify. He became an enthusiastic Jesuit and officer in various Catholic and Jesus Society institutes. His colleagues would have full mouths of non-discrimination and so on but when this top mathematician of the French history applied for an ordinary chair in mathematics, he got just 3 out of 45 votes. Leftwingers have been a biased scum for at least 150 years.

The pan-European revolution of 1848 was mostly good news for Cauchy. The oath was removed from the law and he could regain the professorship again. He died on this day in 1857, sort of respected again. His name is one of the 72 names inscribed into the Eiffel Tower.

Research

In his early career, he made lots of advances about the Appolonius problem of circles touching three other circles; Euler's formulae for polyhedra; he introduced the notion of convergence, and other things. He was quickly becoming a pioneer of mathematical analysis – that's the part of maths dealing with functions, sums, integrals, derivatives, and... (this is why it's more advanced than just calculus – which is otherwise almost the same thing) with all kinds of limits.

He also made contributions to physics – wave mechanics (Fresnel's wave theory) and elasticity (Cauchy stress tensor). Add various things about membranes, vibrations, and so on. I have already mentioned the Fermat polygonal number theorem.

When it comes to mathematical analysis, he really laid the foundations of the holomorphic functions of complex variables, e.g.\[

\oint_C f(z)\dd z = 0

\] if there are no singularities inside the closed contour \(C\). Seeds of this theorem already existed in 1814; the complete form was given in 1825. He figured out how to compute residues either from limits determining the Taylor expansion; or from the contour integrals. Pierre-Alphonse Laurent was the first man after Cauchy who contributed to this essential mathematical knowledge (Laurent series in 1843).

Cauchy tended to praise the mathematical rigor. Already in 1821, he was working with the infinitesimals – formally infinitely small numbers – but he was the first visible guy to have introduced the \(\varepsilon\)-\(\delta\) gymnastics (games with limits) as the rigorous incarnation of the infinitesimal numbers.

It's an excessive task to enumerate everything that Cauchy has done in mathematics. I find it sort of funny to copy-and-paste a list of insights named after Cauchy:

• Binet–Cauchy identity
• Cauchy's argument principle
• Cauchy–Binet formula
• Cauchy boundary condition
• Cauchy condensation test
• Cauchy's convergence test
• Cauchy (crater)
• Cauchy determinant
• Cauchy distribution
• Cauchy's equation
• Cauchy–Euler equation
• Cauchy functional equation
• Cauchy formula for repeated integration
• Cauchy–Frobenius lemma
• Cauchy–Hadamard theorem
• Cauchy horizon
• Cauchy's integral formula
• Cauchy's integral theorem
• Cauchy interlacing theorem
• Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem
• Cauchy matrix
• Cauchy momentum equation
• Cauchy–Peano theorem
• Cauchy principal value
• Cauchy problem
• Cauchy product
• Cauchy's radical test
• Cauchy–Riemann equations
• Cauchy–Schwarz inequality
• Cauchy sequence
• Cauchy surface
• Cauchy's mean value theorem
• Cauchy stress tensor
• Cauchy's theorem (geometry)
• Cauchy's theorem (group theory)
• Euler-Cauchy stress principle
• Maclaurin–Cauchy test

Let me remind you: this guy was voted as unworthy the chair of an ordinary scholar in mathematics by 42 out of 45 self-described "pro-Enlightment" researchers in mathematics. Certain left-wing portions of the Academia have been rotten for centuries.

And that's the memo.

Read More

France bans light at night

François Hollande became many French conservative women's most favorite socialist politician of all time. Not only his government attacked the Islamists in Mali but they have also decided to expel some radical imams from France.

Well, the second event is a positive one and I am somewhat less enthusiastic about the first one because the situation in Mali is mostly incomprehensible to me and I am not an instant fanatical supporter of anyone who just happens not to be a Muslim. And the 75% tax for the rich in France is just insane and it will be harmful to the country, too.



Prague at night, taken a few days ago by Kevin Ford from the International Space Station. Altitude 400 km, speed 27,000 kph. Picture with geographic local names.

But what the Czechs are stunned by is this plan:

Lights out – France to force shops and offices to go dark overnight

From July 1st, shop windows won't be allowed to be illuminated at night. The same is true for offices after the last workers leave and so on. During Christmas, you will need paperwork from local bureaucrats for Christmas tree lights that would violate the rules. Paris could soon seem very different than it looks now – and very different than Prague on the picture. It could resemble North Korea that permanently celebrates the Earth Day.




How do they justify this insanity? The emissions of CO2 may be reduced by 250,000 tons per year. Even if you believed the IPCC that the CO2 emissions are heating the Earth by 3 °C a century, which is at least a 3-fold overestimate, it's still due to 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. So we're talking about 10 parts of million of the global emissions which means 30 microkelvins per century or 0.0000003 °C of "mitigated warming" per year. Did I miss a zero? I hope it's correct.



Do they really want to turn these things off?

A rational person surely doesn't think that it's appropriate to pay the price of Paris looking like Pyongyang at night for this utterly negligible – and negative, when you look carefully – change.

"Light pollution" is quoted as another justification. I've seen some movies about "light pollution" and although one could a priori think that this could be a legitimate concern, I think that all the people claiming that light pollution is a problem are Luddite lunatics, too. There's just lots of places on Earth where light pollution is nearly non-existent. You may still go there. It's probably not too important because not too many people are going there.



Delphine Batho, France's minister of "ecology and sustainable development". It's just an example of political correctness run amok when an insanely stupid slut of this type whose main "achievement" is her previous membership in various violent left-wing guerilla groups becomes a minister in one of the cradles of modern democracy who may decide about totally technical questions such as the amount of artificial light in the whole country.

Light isn't garbage. Light is what God wanted to exist before He said it was great. Light is what we use to see all the pretty and other things. Lumo is light in esperanto. Light is \(\gamma\), photons, quanta of the gauge field of the only unbroken unconfined gauge group we have in Nature. Light is great. Who hates light is a satanist, a Devil fanatic, a Dark Age advocate, a loon.

At any rate, I am calmed down at least by the clear comment by the Czech ministry of environment that they "resolutely reject all similar kinds of obscurantism". I sort of believe that this attitude would persist even if the current center-right government were replaced by a left-wing one. Also, our newly chosen president elect often mentions the EU light bulb ban as his favorite example of absurdities that shouldn't be decided at the EU level.

Read More

Taxes: Depardieu, Delon escape Hollande

Today, the Japanese voters ended a ludicrous 3-year-long experiment with the left-wing politicians at the top that began in 2009, after decades of right-wing governments that were able to rebuild Japan after the loss in the world war and bring its economy to the #2 spot.

Shinzo Abe of the LDP will return to the chair of the prime minister; the DPJ socialists have lost approximately 3/4 of their seats gained in 2009. The voters realized that the leftists emit lots of big words and promises but they're just dirty lies. Of course, the leftists faced some event they couldn't quite have influenced – e.g. the tsunami or the fact that China surpassed Japan as the world's #2 economy (probably a coincidence) but it's clear they were bringing nothing good to the country.



Japan has a reason for some more optimistic Japanese music – what about Vltava? :-)

Meanwhile, France has a left-wing government that codified a breathtaking 75 percent tax rate for the rich that should come into force in 2 weeks. Now, would you be pleased to work hard and pay 75 percent of your income to a group of dirty gangsters who call themselves the government? If you would, you are a psychopath; it's a kind of a psychiatric disorder that many other people may support you in having – for various not too mysterious reasons – but that doesn't change anything about the fact that you're profoundly sick. ;-)




Needless to say, there are many mentally healthy people among the wealthy Frenchmen. And you have heard their names. Many famous people moved out of France. They include Asterix and Obelix. The first one, Gerard Depardieu, moved to a Belgian town right behind the borders where he pays no taxes designed for the rich. The latter, Christian Clavier, moved to London.



The only disadvantage of Belgium is that you have to be careful when you press buttons on the main square.

Karl Lagerfeld, the German creative director of French Chanel, has informed Mr Hollande that he (Hollande) was an idiot. It's clearly not a terribly original insight but it may still be important for Mr Hollande to memorize it at this stage. Alain Delon is leaving the country to become a resident elsewhere, too. The same is true about Johnny Hallyday, a singer. Well, that's quite a brain drain, or clown drain or whatever is the appropriate term. ;-)



All of us understand what's going on and we don't have to use too strong words. On the other hand, it's still interesting to ask whether these transfers are too different from what we have known as emigration in the socialist bloc. Hundreds of thousands of Czechoslovaks have escaped the communist country since the coup since 1948 – for reasons that were always a mixture of political ones and economic ones. Of course, their separation from the homeland was "more irreversible" – although it turned out to be reversible in many cases, after all – than it is in the case of the French actors who may still visit France.

However, the "motivation side" of their decision isn't too different. France is currently led by imbeciles representing jealous losers who either don't have a clue how wealth is produced or they have a clue but they dream about "maliciously screwing the rich", anyway. They either don't understand that the policies will chase a part of the elite out of country and reduce the investment and production in the country (including the birth of culture) in general; or they don't mind. I don't know which of those is more typical and which of them is more justifiable and I don't really care; it wouldn't change my verdict on these individuals (or, more precisely, mobs; I mean those that brought Hollande to the power) much.

The Depardieu case is the most interactive one. He has upped the ante in his battle when he threatened (or announced?) to return the French passport. This is really getting closer to the stories of the emigrants from the communist bloc. He has offered his explanation through the media. He says that he has worked hard as a printer before he became an actor. He always paid all his taxes, fulfilled all duties, loved the French nation, but now he's so insulted that there are no doubts about his next steps.

In 2012, he paid a 85% tax on his income. Whatever he exactly counts, it is just insane. In the last 45 years, he has paid 145 million in taxes. Wow. Now, he's going to be a true European, free cosmopolitan citizen.

The prime minister of France has called Depardieu "pathetic" and "unpatriotic" because, the prime minister believes, "to pay taxes is a patriotic act". Holy cow, please give me a break with these pathetic pomposities; paying taxes is always just a necessary, enforced evil, not a reason to celebrate; and a government forcing citizens to do obviously unpleasant things and hide their unhappiness at the same moment is intrinsically an authoritarian government. At Harvard, I was paying at most 25% which is much less than 75% but it did make me somewhat angry about the organized thieves at the IRS and Mass DOR, anyway (especially because of the combination with the insane bureaucracy and permanent retroactive harassment linked to previous returns).

Depardieu vows to remain polite but asks the prime minister: Who are you? I join Mr Depardieu. Who is the French prime minister? I have never written down his name (because I don't remember what it is, even though I could have been looking at it just 10 seconds ago) and I wouldn't recognize his face. I can recognize Mr Depardieu but not the current French prime minister.

Could the French prime minister please fully exploit the opportunity to shut his arrogant socialist mouth up (or down, whatever is more appropriate)? And to adjust his behavior according to his being the ultimate embarrassing socialist zero that the prime minister undoubtedly is? He hasn't contributed 1% of the things (or paid 1% of the taxes) to France or the world that Mr Depardieu has. Still, he seems to believe that he has not only the right to steal most of the income from Mr Depardieu but even to be unbelievably arrogant towards Mr Depardieu.

The prime minister's behavior is what many people have called the "arrogance of power". It may sound a bit intimidating when the prime minister of the country where you live calls you "pathetic" just because you don't want to do something that no sane person would want to do – to pay 75% taxes.



Remove the Czech subtitles

If a 75% tax rate isn't insane enough for you, you may also watch what's happening with the curriculum of history at French schools. Irrelevant nigger chieftains are squeezing kings and Napoleon – who are moreover painted in very unfavorable ways. Totally unbelievable.

See also Darkening demographics in France – 6 minutes in Russian with English or French subtitles. 3 more minutes of similar reports, focusing on reverse racism.

Read More