Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger In League With White Nationalism? Only A Hack Like WSJ's William McGurn Would Push That

What to make of WSJ columnist William McGurn's claims in his Sept. 1 op-ed 'White Supremacy and Abortion', p. 15, in which he writes:

"Black pro-lifers are treated as if they don't exist. Quick example: how many outlets even reported the National Day of Mourning, with a prayer service for all the black lives lost to abortion?"

Seriously, does McGurn even care? Does he even give a shit apart from being able to employ reverse identity politics to spin his bunkum in an effort to get more blacks to side with the Right?  After all, we're well aware -  from a recent NY Review of Books piece ('The Culmination of Republican Decay' (Oct. 10, p. 10) by Sean Wilentz,   and Tim Alberta's 'American Carnage'-   that "Republicans were driven crazy over issues to do with race based on 'Obama's perceived exploitation of racially driven politics."

And what triggered that craziness?  Well, "Obama's emotional response to the murder of Trayvon Martin".  In other words, Obama rendering a human, compassionate response to a black kid's murder sent the Reepos' brains off the edge.  How to get back? Well, dig up the old eugenics bogey and pin that tail on those like Margaret Sanger, who did her utmost to ensure all poor women - white or black - were not saddled with more kids than they could support.

And this is relevant because in many other McGurn screeds we see him ripping poor and working class folk for not doing more to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps as opposed to depending on food stamps, Medicaid or other government support.  As for the question at the end of his quote above, why would national outlets pander to a PR stunt which is what that 'national day of mourning' was.  As a reality check on this bullshit we can cite Ethics prof Cheryl Mendelson's observation - from her book, 'The Good Life' (p. 159) regarding nature's rate of disposing of fetuses:

"Nature sloughs off early pregnancies at a high rate and we do not hold funerals for these embryos and early fetuses.  As many as 60 to 70 percent of fertilized eggs are lost overall, usually silently - without anyone ever knowing fertilization took place. 

Up to 15 percent of known pregnancies miscarry in the first trimester. Were we to take seriously the morbid pseudo-moralism ... we would recognize these countless millions of miscarried embryos and fetuses as lost lives..."

In other words, each day there's a still birth or other untoward natural event  resulting in a fetus' termination - if people really cared -  we'd see a full- on funeral, burial service, even a memorial.   But we don't.  Why not? Because nature is "sloughing off"  early pregnancies at a rate at which no sane person can keep up. And in addition, these naturally -aborted entities are not regarded as full human persons.  Nor should they be.  Recall, as Antony Flew once noted, this is the genetic fallacy, basically like asserting an acorn is an oak tree because it is going to become such.

  But those like McGurn keep beating the drum of pseudo outrage because they want poor black women to feel guilt at having an abortion.  Oh, and thereby making a concrete effort to stave off having to access the government benefits like food stamps - which actions McGurn also condemns!  

So no surprise McGurn would also turn his sights on Margaret Sanger (ibid.) intimating she'd possibly elicit the black pro-lifers to believe she "wanted to exterminate the Negro population" at the time.   This, given: 

 "It was Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who in the Negro Project - started a campaign to get African Americans to have fewer children".

An evil, nefarious plot? Hell no!  Sanger was simply percipient enough to see how African -Americans were being held down economically by a white capitalist overclass, and prevented from getting livable wages.  Wages - as well as decent housing - that would have delivered a secure financial foothold. In this setting, the absence of birth control leading to 6, 7 and even 8 or more kids, was a virtual death sentence in Whitey America.   At the very least it was a condemnation to endless indignity,  scraping from hand to mouth, beggary and early demise - physical and mental.  There were no government benefits that could be effectively summoned at that time, whether food stamps or Medicaid, and it was long before the era of Affirmative Action.  So, minus the economic leveraging via fewer births (birth control) African-Americans remained at perpetual disadvantage.   

As for the "Negro Project",  we learn this from a piece in Rewire News e.g.

https://rewire.news/article/2015/08/20/false-narratives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/

"In her seminal book Killing the Black Body, Dorothy Roberts points out that leaders in the Black community actually welcomed Sanger’s birth control agenda in the 1930s, and even criticized it for not going far enough to serve Black people.
W. E. B. Du Bois, who was one of the first Black leaders to publicly support birth control and who worked closely with Sanger to advocate for it, even serving on the board of a clinic that Sanger opened up in Harlem, criticized the wider birth control movement because of its failure to address Black people’s needs as well."

Further and most germane to McGurn's agenda:

'The Negro Project had nothing to do with some nefarious plot to exterminate Black people or to “sterilize unknowing Black women,” as claimed by BlackGenocide.org—which is a widely read website seemingly dedicated to spreading false information about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

Rather, the Negro Project was a concerted effort by Sanger and Black community leaders to bring birth control to the South in a way that would assuage the deep-seated fears of Black birth control opponents like Marcus Garvey, who believed that the use of birth control in the Black community was tantamount to Black genocide.

Many opponents of Planned Parenthood purposefully obfuscate this history in order to paint Sanger, and in turn Planned Parenthood itself, as spearheading a plot to kill off Black people."

Thus,  American women  - black and white - owe Margaret Sanger a debt of gratitude for providing the future basis for a choice NOT to remain barefoot, poor and pregnant.  While we're at it, let's point out that Sanger was actually anti-abortion. As noted from the Rewire article:

"Sanger opposed abortion. She believed it to be a barbaric practice. In her own words, “[a]lthough abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious.” Her views are, ironically, in keeping with the views of many of the anti-choicers who malign and distort her legacy. In fact, Planned Parenthood did not even begin performing abortions until after 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade legalized the practice."

Of course, distortion artists like William McGurn would always prefer lies and misrepresentation to potential female liberation, because, well... he's a rich white man.  A white man with no principles or ethics who in his piece attempts to elide those like Margaret Sanger, abortion providers, birth control providers, with white nationalist scum. 

The choicest remark at all McGurn leaves to the end:

"But no pro lifer ever said life was easy. We say life is beautiful!"

Yeppers, so long as you and your capitalist ilk don't have to raise taxes to provide food stamps, Medicaid or even child care - to help those poor women who actually DO  give birth.  In other words, McGurn's bandwagon is fully aboard to defend the rights of the unborn.  Just don't ask them to do anything for those already born! They are on their own in McGurn's 'dog eat dog'  world.

Update: WSJ Letter response from Alexis McGill Johnson, President & CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation:
--------------------------------------

"William McGurn's description of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's  'Negro project' is callous and incorrect. A full reading of Sanger's leter about the project reveals her outlining the important role black doctors and nurses serve to calm concerns about eugenics, not to promote it.  Planned Parenthood denounces eugenics because we believe every person - regardless of race or income - should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their body. 

Framing access to reproductive health care and bodily autonomy as eugenics exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of the racialized gender oppression on which anti-abortionists stand. The truth is that the anti-abortion movement was born out of racist and xenophobic concerns about the falling white birth rate- which you still hear in white supremacist rhetoric.

We stand with black women and refuse to cower to the misogny and white supremacy that seeks to deny autonomy and access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care, including abortion."

See also:

Taxes | Wealth Inequality

The Wealthiest Americans Haven’t Paid Their Fair Share in Decades

Examining Issues Of Causality - Why Is It So Difficult To Nail Down Causes?

It is a remarkable fact that in many debates, religious as well as political issues of cause and causality arise yet the debaters have little conception of what these terms mean.   Did  some faction of stupid, uninformed voters "cause" a deformed and deranged creature like Trump to ascend to power?   Or was it the end process of a Neoliberal system which left too many in the country feeling insecure and full of grievance?  Or, was it a reaction to Obama's unfulfilled promise of "hope and change"?  Or was it a disjunctive plurality of these acting in concert?  Up to now  the main pundits can't  even agree, only that in 2016 we had a dumpster fire of an election. 

In this blog post I want to explore issues of causality and how they can best be argued and assessed   .

Much general confusion inheres in conflating efficient causality and regular conditionality – which is what “necessary and sufficient conditions” are really all about. (cf. Mario Bunge, Causality and Modern Science, pp. 33-34, 1979). The other part of the problem resides in extrapolating conditions peculiar to general traits for scientific laws into human domains.

I want to focus on the first of these for now.

The criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions was actually invoked originally by Galileo to replace the concept of efficient cause (ibid., p. 33). In this regard, it was recognized from early on that "efficient causation" was often too limited or narrow a concept to be practical or workable. As for “necessary and sufficient conditions” - they are really a statement of regular conditionality that exposes no real criteria for causal efficacy.

Nonetheless, in many venues they are about the best we can hope for in approaching a feasible discussion of causes. For example, Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, p. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c,d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.

Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far.

Because of this one uses the more neutral term “condition” and specifies necessary and sufficient ones. The latter terms are specifically meaningful in the context of determining causal conditions, and hence, causes. If one eschews them, then one concedes he is incapable of logical argument incorporating the most basic affiliation with cause or causation.

Given this, let's explore further the concept of conditionalness or conditionality. The goal is to see if or how we can drive n-s conditions toward a firmer basis, say of causal efficacy. Generally four characteristics are assigned for efficient causality: conditionalness, existential succession, uniqueness and constancy. The first, conditionalness is a generic trait of scientific law.

Thus, for example, applying conditionalness to the occurrence of large solar flares, I know I must include such factors as: steepness of the magnetic gradient in the active region, rate of proper motion of sunspots in the active region, magnetic class of said spots, magnetic flux, and helicity of the magnetic field. Each of the above allows a degree of determinacy in the prediction, once I make the measurements.

For example, the magnetic gradient: grad B = [+B_n - (-B_n)] / x

where the numerator denotes the difference in the normal components of the magnetic field (between opposite polarities of the active region) as measured by vector magnetograph and the denominator the scale separation between them. If I calculate grad B = 0.1 Gauss/km, then I know a flare is 96% probable within 24 hrs. In the case of existential succession, in the physical case of the solar flare I know that when the magnetic gradient spikes or steepens to 0.1 Gauss/km a flare is imminent to 96% probability – in 24 hrs.

Unlike conditionalness, the attribute of uniqueness (or high level determinacy such that a one-to-one onto mapping occurs between C(cause) and E (effect)) is absent from certain kinds of law – such as statistical regularities peculiar to statistical mechanics (e.g. the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution function) or the empirical- statistical correlations that show how sunspot morphology is related to the frequency of certain classes of flares.

It is also absent from those quantum phenomena (including the spontaneous inception of the cosmos) which are governed by quantum logic, not binary classical logic. This is why it is futile to get into arguments with people who merely use classical either-or logic and haven't been exposed to quantum logic. See also my previous blog on this issue:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/foray-into-quantum-logical-and.html

One example I gave therein was in a claimant who asserted: "No primary cause can be physical". The trouble is, that this assumption is based on a classical system of logic that is binary and uses binary {1,0} or (yes, no) operators. Thus, since a careless person- perhaps attempting to execute a "proof" of a creator, will assert all physical entities must be caused, he will make the classical error of applying this to the cosmos' origin.

But what if instead of classical mechanics and its deterministic provisions, quantum mechanics is incorporated, say at the level of quantum gravity? Can the proposition still hold? No, since we saw the binary{0,1}-valued observables may be regarded as encoding propositions about properties of the state of the system. Thus a self-adjoint operator P with spectrum contained in the two-point set {0,1} must be a projection; i.e., P^2 = P. Such operators are in one-to-one correspondence with the closed subspaces of H, the Hilbert space. But they are not in such correspondence with classical operators that one might assign to classical causality conditions!

Anyway, we move on. Uniqueness is a characteristic, but not an exclusive trait of causation. When one avers “uniqueness of causation” one really means “the rigidity of causation” as opposed to say plasticity which would be associated with human processes, influences, choices and outcomes. For example, plasticity was at work in the 2000 presidential election, embedded in the (disjunctive) plurality of proximate causes of why Al Gore lost Florida to Bush, and hence the presidency in the electoral vote count (though he did win the popular vote across the U.S. by 500,000). . Among these causes: i) 200,000 Dem voters bailed and voted Repub (bear in mind in the final count Bush only won by 537 votes), ii) Nader garnered nearly 50,000 votes - and they were claimed "taken from Dems" - though this has never been proven, and iii) more than 58,000 African -Americans were disenfranchised as documented by Greg Palast in the first chapter of his book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

The distinguishing aspect of plasticity in causality is that a given outcome (say the potential election of Gore in 2000) could be attained by a whole range of alternative means. (E.g. Gore could have won in 2000 if Nader had not run, OR if Gore had fought hard enough for the purged votes to be reinstated, OR if he had fought for the 3,100+ butterfly ballot votes to be reinstated in Palm Beach County, OR if he had demanded all the votes in every county be counted- which the Miami Herald later showed would have won it for him). Note that the key aspect here is that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive.

If only “necessary and sufficient conditions” are to be regarded as antecedents in a casual connection then a simple causation is implied (which lies at the heart of regular conditionality):

If C, then (and only then) E 

Again, this is justifiably applied in the context of totally deterministic – and “rigidly causal” examples such as occur in the scientific realm (Newton’s 2nd law: F= ma) but NOT human dynamics or processes. For the latter, the imposition of linear causal chains to describe events and outcomes is defective ontologically since it crafts an artificial line of development in a whole stream of causes (e.g. disjunctive plurality of causes).

As Bunge observes (p. 132) this amounts to a fabrication that may prove useful in terms of description or conveying complex information, say about the 2000 election, but it falls way short in arriving at the efficient causation we seek. The gist of all the preceding is that it is facile, naïve and utterly preposterous to over-extrapolate the“necessary and sufficient conditions” to human affairs and events. That will remain the case until such time the human agents and actors are at least as predictable as the particle of a gas are, say, in terms of their velocities in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.

The Problem of employing False Conditionality- Hence False Causation:

While the whole preceding section may appear to be a rarefied discussion, it actually has significant practical application: namely in ferreting out false causation arguments. Most of these, in fact, mistake a false conditionality for an efficient causation. Some examples from the past are really extreme, but I will point out just one - the classic used by mathematician Leonhard Euler on the French atheist Denis Diderot (who also, alas was innumerate).

Anyway, the story goes like this: on being informed of a new "proof for God's existence" Diderot expressed a desire to hear it, from Euler. Euler then walked toward him and announced (without cracking even a slight grin):

"Sir, (a + b)^n/ n = x, hence God exists! Reply!"

The poor Diderot, lost in any abstract math, was so stunned - the story goes- that he nearly lost his mind and senses and had to leave Paris.

However, had he even basic training in logic and the nuances of causation, he could have easily peered calmly at Euler, and informed him: "Sir, the so-called proof is nothing but nonsense that has nothing to do with the entity you are trying to prove. You have merely given a mathematical equation, nothing more - and hence, a false conditionalness which you mistake for efficient causation!"

Of course, any number of other examples can be substituted for Euler's false conditionality. For example, "God is two-dimensional in time" - proves efficient causation. Or "God is the uncaused cause", when in fact all that's being done is to insert a noun which hasn't even been vetted for the bare necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist.

The point is that most such arguments fall because while they invoke some form of efficient causation, they don't use or deliver it. They deliver a fraud masquerading as it, which we recognize as a false conditionalness. Worse, asserting "God is a first cause" is actually and technically unprovable within an axiomatic system based on cause! (Of course, one may eschew such a system - but then he loses the ability to argue from or about "cause"!) This is directly from application of Gödel's Incompleteness theorems.

In this case the set of causal elements in the axiomatic system, call the set: Z ={C1, C2, C3,........Cn) has ONE element which is uncaused. It matters not whether it is C1 or any other. The point is, the proof of its existence can't be rendered from within the axiomatic system that uses the set Z for a causal argument. Thus, one will inevitably find at least one contradiction, and this contradiction means the system is incomplete, so the set must be also.

Look at it this way: say Z = C1 is equivalent to saying C1 is "the first cause of all Z". But if: Z = C1 were provable-in-the-system, we have a contradiction: for if it were provable in-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system, so that "Z= C1 is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false. Again, it can't be provable in the system since C1 is an element from a presumed CAUSAL set. So, Z = C1 is unprovable-in-the-system is not provable-in-the-system (Z), but unprovable-in-the-system (Z). Technically, one would require a "meta-set" such that Z' = Z + k', the uncaused element- with Z purged of it. However, it can be shown that invoking such a meta-set leads to an infinite regression.

This shows why - before one interjects false conditionality- he or she had first better be sure Kurt Gödel isn't looking over his shoulder!

The Sundry Ways That Anti-Evolutionists Misfire

Announcement of Fundie Duane Gish's "Evolution vs. Creationism" lecture at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks in 1986. It's been over a hundred years and these bozos still  can only flail at scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution - or find bogus faults with his theory.

Diagram showing the putative (presumed) evolution of late Devonian fish.






A recurring theme among backward anti-evolutionists (like the late Duane Gish, see image above) is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is somehow "missing in action" or accepted when evidence contradicts it. This is a typical trope, especially of the ID-creationist crowd, who have no independent evidence of their own.  Let me clarify: that withstands tests of falsification and exists apart from assorted nitpickings to do with perceived "failings" of evolution.  Among the fake issues, such as have been raised by Duane Gish, Jason Lisle and others.

(1) Darwin never said where the first cell came from.

This one's a simple non-starter, a 'macguffin' that marshals no negatives against Darwinism! The reason? It isn’t part of Darwinian evolution proper, but rather abiogenesis: the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The consensus of current research is already fairly clear about the nature or form of the first primitive organisms. They were prokaryotic autotrophs, where a prokaryote has one chromosome only, dispersed in its cytoplasm. An autotroph is an organism that doesn’t depend on others for nutrition.

More specifically, they were suspended colloidal micro-spheres capable of exchanging energy with their surroundings. To get energy, these self-sustaining coacervate droplets could use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy.

Compound R is perhaps a protenoid, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. Concurrent with the first reaction is the possibility of a second, entailing autocatalytic molecules designated X*Y. These molecules can accelerate their own formation, using ATP. On the basis of the chemical reactions, the hypothetical coacervate would consist of the combination: X*Y + R.

Now, what properties might we expect for any such primitive life form? They’d include: simple organization, ability to increase in size, and ability to maintain itself over extended intervals. Does the coacervate meet these condition? Well, it has a very simple organization consisting of the molecules X*Y and R. It can increase its size by synthesizing more of X*Y, growing until unstable. Finally, it can maintain itself over indefinite intervals, so long as it can extract the chemical components it needs. What about replication? We expect that this is feasible when it splits into ‘daughters’ after growing too large. Then, so long as each has some of the protenoid R there is the capacity for replication.

A logical question is whether there is anything that can remotely compare to the theoretical construct above. In fact, there is, and it’s called a pleuro-pneumonia like organism or PPLO for short. The PPLO is as close to the theoretical limit of how small an organism can be[1]. Some figures clarify this. It has about 12 million atoms, and a molecular weight of 2.88 million Daltons[2]. Compared to an amoeba, it weighs about one billions times less.


(2) "The existence of living coelacanths disproves evolution"

This one is often invoked by crazy creationists to try to show that evolution “messed up” or went awry, given an alleged ancient fish (deemed extinct for tens of millions of years) suddenly shows up alive and well in 1938. Problem is, they get it all wrong from top to bottom, with erroneous assumptions piled onto some early taxonomic errors in classifying the living species.

Before the living specimens were discovered, it was believed by some that the coelacanth was a "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods. It was often claimed that the coelacanth had “remained unchanged for millions of years”; but, in fact, the living species and genus were unknown from the fossil record. The most likely reason for the gap is the original taxonomy becoming extinct in shallow waters only. Deep-water fossils, however, are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record.

Again, we have the sad spectacle of too eager-beaver creationists seizing on poorly constructed speciation catalogs, or wrong taxonomic assumptions – to make specious cases. In this case, conflating the ancient –prehistorical coelacanth with the modern living species, the Latimeria menadoensis, caught off Japan ca. 1938. Thus the absurd question posed by some (like Riffe) as to “How can such a creature be found alive in 1938 when supposedly dead for 80 million years?” is easily answered: Because we are looking at TWO different species of fish, from two differing sea water levels!!

(3) Darwin never actually found evidence for evolution in his Galapagos sojourn

This one is technically correct, but factually wrong. Let me explain.

The problem is that Darwin didn’t logically make all the necessary connections that his observations disclosed at the time he made them during his Beagle sojourn to the Galapagos. Indeed, Darwin was so initially imbued with the creationist perspective that he failed to collect one single species of giant tortoise present in the islands. Fortunately, the occurrence of other species - and their recording- ultimately held away with the assistance of a consummate taxonomic researcher: John Gould - an ornithological expert at the London Zoological Society.

Indeed, had Darwin already been privy to natural selection, and how adaptations operate within its purview, he'd have easily seen that the variety of beaks displayed among the finches he found was directly traceable to the sort of foods they ate, in the respective islands. In point of fact, four of the fourteen finch species fed on seeds (as finches generally do), and another two species consumed fruits, flesh and flowers of cacti. Seven other finch species were primarily insectivorous, while one fed exclusively on leaves. Thus, from his creationist disadvantage point, it wasn't surprising that Darwin was fooled to the extent of believing some of the birds weren't finches at all.

According to Frank J. Sulloway, in his essay, ‘Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design’:

“Faced with an absence of critical information to resolve the finches issue, Darwin continued to give a nod to the prevailing creationist assumption that variation within immutable species can lead to new varieties or subspecies that are adapted to local environments”

However, Darwin's pserspective was subsequently rescued by his good friend, John Gould . Sulloway (ibid.) notes that:

“Darwin returned to England, on October 2, 1836. Three months later, he deposited his Beagle collections of birds with John Gould, the ornithological expert at the London Zoological society.”THIS was the key breakthrough step since it was none other than Gould who “immediately realized the extraordinary nature of Darwin’s Galapagos specimens and analyzed and described them first”. In other words, it was John Gould who showed Darwin that he'd had the direct evidence for evolution via natural selection in his hands all the time. He just didn't recognize it!

Based on Gould’s analysis, contained in a full report he published March 1837, Darwin was finally informed that 3 of his 4 mockingbird species were distinct - new to science - and different from all other known mockingbirds. It was at that juncture Darwin found himself confronted by the problem of the origin of species that escaped him while actually in the Galapagos, imbued with his creationist mentality. And it was at this stage of discovery that the putative basis for his great work 'The Origin of Species' was forged.

Of course, it was no exaggeration to say Darwin was stunned by Gould's results. Indeed, if Gould was correct about the mockingbirds it meant that the supposed "barrier" between species had been broken by these birds on a set of isolated islands. Thus, gradual evolution through geographic isolation was the only plausible explanation that fit with the observational record (clarified by Gould, an expert ornithologist).

Darwin was later compelled to write in his Journal of Researches:

"Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends."

Fortunately for us all (now), as Darwin then came to examine more of his Beagle records from his new viewpoint, he realized he'd been blinded by the creationist codswallop. After reading Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population, Darwin realized that in the ongoing struggle for scarce resources, slight variations of beneficial nature would tend to be naturally selected - leading to increased survival and hence increase in adaptive traits.Thus, a finch peculiar to one island lacking in fruits, or other normal finch fare, could survive if it simply increased its adaptive repertoire, say by eating insects instead.

Again, we suggest to readers that the best strategy is to actually read Darwin's Origin of Species, to see first hand how much his viewpoint had changed and how (in his marvellous book) he was able to document visually the first hand evidence of natural selection - after being set straight by John Gould.

The best version of his book to get, therefore, is the one that is illustrated. Don't wait for it to appear on "Kindle" as it likely never will. None of the electronic book reading device manufacturers are going to have books older than about 40 years placed into their archives anytime soon! Get Darwin's book now - assuming you can locate an intact edition-  and enjoy it as you read it late into the night.

---------------------------------
[1] Viruses are smaller, of course, but they’re not regarded as free living organisms. That is, they require a host in order to live, replicate.
[2] One Dalton: roughly the mass-weight of a hydrogen atom or 1.66 x 10^-27 kg.

How The Virus Of Neoliberalism Infected The Democratic Party

                                                                               

Neoliberalism is the economic bane of the planet and the primary reason that rightist nationalist populism is now spreading - from Trump in the U.S. to Modi in India, to Victor Orban in Hungary.  How did this economic virus acquire such jet fuel to spread to every nook of the globe in barely 40 years?  I suspect it began with the U.S. in the Reagan era and metastasized from there.

Anyone who's been paying attention for the last 40 years can tell you that the marginalization of lower socio-economic classes actually commenced with  the Reagan tax cuts in the early 80s. Robert McChesney in his excellent book, The Problem of the Media, Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49, writes:

"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society"

Economic scholar Matt Stoller - building on this theme - notes that by the 1980s Democrats altered abandoned New Deal and Great Society liberalism in favor of the  new dogma that came to be known as neoliberalism — a view of society in which markets and financial instruments, rather than government policy and direct intervention, are seen as the best way to achieve social ends.

For his part, McChesney showed the Democrats had become their own worst enemies - seeking to advance a misbegotten, pro-business agenda even at the expense of losing many of their base, the working class. One can understand it with the naturally business-friendly Republicans, but not with the Dems who grew their original political DNA with FDR and the New Deal.

The problem with the Neoliberal, pro -free market idiom is that it denies the most basic security for the majority of citizens. In this way it feeds economic inequality while it rewards the speculator and banker class. It also helps to corrupt the political class via unregulated campaign contributions.

Jay Bookman aptly noted('The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad', in The Baltimore Sun, December 15, 1997):

"The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative. In times of crisis, however, that premise cannot be sustained politically. In times of trouble it is human nature to seek security and protection and to be drawn toward those who promise to provide it. That is how men such as Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came to power, with disastrous consequences."

It's also how men such as Donald Trump came to unearned power - in the U.S. - especially by promising those undermined by Neoliberalism how he'd save them.  So he made enormous promises like the con man he is, including: bringing back jobs to rust belt states, resurrecting King Coal as an energy source, cleaning out the D.C. "swamp" - which he's only added to, and oh yeah, making Mexico pay for that stupid wall.

But these vapid promises existed before Trump came along, and Obama  - bless his heart - had been one of the prime Neoliberal pushers.  As a recent NY Times piece ('Barack Obama Biggest Mistake')  by Farhad Manjoo notes:

"Obama’s biggest ideas were neoliberal: The Affordable Care Act, his greatest domestic policy achievement, improved access to health care by altering private health-insurance markets. Obama aimed to address the climate crisis by setting up a market for carbon, and his plan for improving education focused on technocratic, standards-based reform. Even Obama’s historical icons were neoliberal — the neoliberals’ patron saint being Alexander Hamilton, the elitist, banker-friendly founding father who would be transformed, in Obama’s neoliberal Camelot, into a beloved immigrant striver with very good flow."

Let's also recall Obama's admiration for Reagan himself.

 Then there was also his ill-advised "Deficit commission" - which aim was to basically cut benefits from those who needed it the most, including paring down Social Security using a "Chained CPI"scheme. See e.g.

• Time to Kick Alan Simpson to the Curb!

 All of which was designed to undermine citizen security.  Then there was his refusal to veto the extension of the Bush tax cuts - another form of Neoliberal meme - given the belief that such cuts spur economic activity - e.g.

• Why Have the Dems Turned into Weak Wusses?

Sadly, most citizens today only know Dem Neoliberalism - they've no clue about actual liberal economic policies such as pursued by FDR, and JFK.  As Manjoo observes (ibid.)

"The long history of Democratic populism is unknown to most liberals today. Only now, in the age of Sanders and Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are we beginning to relearn the lessons of the past. For at least three decades, neoliberalism has brought the left economic half-measures and political despair."

And with that despair brought an unqualified grifter, con man, mutt and traitor like Trump into power as well. The question now is whether enough dumb voters will compound their misery by giving Donnie Dotard another four years to destroy what is left of the country.

Can We Help A Supernaturally- Obsessed WSJ Letter Writer Overcome His Fear Of Materialism?

Americans have more than enough to occupy their worry hours lately, what with the spread of white nationalism, mass shooting threats and Trumpist insanity and lies. The latter was on display last week with Trump's dog and pony show with the Ukrainian Prez.  Then there is the constant financial turbulence (again no thanks to Dotard) , diseases such as EEE and vaping pneumonia,  preternaturally strong hurricanes like Doria.  So why add  supernatural phantasmagorias to that existential load?

Well, one WSJ letter writer named Paul Malocha appears to want to, writing in a letter four days ago:

"Neurons provide the material for human consciousness but cannot create it. A rational soul is necessary. Without the latter you have a bunch of data and processes only...Of course, the materialist philosophy behind this quest (for thinking machines) rejects that there is such a thing as a soul, rather holding that consciousness is simply an emergent property of electric meat."

But it is vastly more than "electric meat! And that's where Mr. Malocha goes astray and so allows supernatural babble like "souls" to enter the picture.  In fact, the departure from the crude materialism that Malocha invokes is made possible by the introduction of quantum mechanics into neural processing and brain dynamics.   We have to thank physicist Henry Stapp (Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, p. 42)  who  first posited that that uncertainty principle limitations applied to calcium ion capture near synapses shows they (calcium ions) must be represented by a probability function.  The latter is described by quantum mechanics, so entails a wave form (de Broglie waves) - not just matter- and we move beyond "electric meat".

More specifically, the dimension of the associated calcium ion wavepacket scales many times larger than the calcium ion itself. This nullifies the use of classical trajectories or classical mechanics to trace the path of the ions.  It thereby opens the door fully to quantum mechanics.  Ultimately (using additional work by physicist David Bohm) one can arrive at a "quantum potential", defined:

V_Q=   {-ħ²/ 2m} [Ñ R]² / R

for a wave function, U = R exp(iS/ħ)

where R,S are real.

But let's back up a bit to units we call neuronal assemblies, and super assemblies. These are amenable to a particular type of neural network processing that relies on "clustering algorithms" and for which quantum dots can be located at critical junctures in the network to minimize input variations and assure specific outputs. To fix ideas, I direct readers to parts A, B and C of Fig. 1.

 Part (A) shows a neuronal super-assembly, part (B) a biological and quantum analog to one center of neuronal action, and part (C) the workable neural network known as the radial basis function.  Part (A) shows a neuronal super-assembly, part (B) a biological and quantum analog to one center of neuronal action, and part (C) the workable neural network known as the radial basis function.

A neuronal assembly can also be described by connections to some N-synapses (where N> 100,000). This is shown simplified in the left side of the same diagram(B), where the neuron A now has 4 rays: AB, AC, AD, AE representing four connections of the same neuron to four different synapses. Bear in mind the neuron A has any number of quantum wave state possibilities associated with it: firing or not firing, action-potential or no action potential and perhaps one million others. In a higher-order neuronal assembly one might have 1,000 neurons each connected to 100,000 synapses for which an extremely complicated figure would result!

Consider now the the quantum aspect. A neuron 'A' either fires or not. The 'firing' and 'not firing' can be designated as two different quantum states identified by the numbers 1 and 2. When we combine them together in a vector sum diagram, we obtain the superposition. where the wave function (left side) applies to the neuron 'A'. What if one has 1,000 neurons, each to be described by the states 1 and 2? In principle, one can obtain the vector sum as shown in the above equation for neuron A and combine it with all the other vector sums (using the quantum superposition principle) for each of the 999 other neurons. The resulting vector sum represents the superposition of all subsidiary wave states and possibilities - at least those for the 'firing-not firing' states! The end product of this is a neuronal 'assembly' or aggregate of neurons (and associated synapses, axons, dendrites, etc.) which performs some function or acts like a circuit (for example a simple reflex arc, as when one burns a finger and automatically removes it from the source).

At a higher level of the hierarchy, one refers to the neuronal super-assembly(A) or 'super-circuit’ within which considerations such as networks, and optimization of paths as well as 'adjacency and order' take precedence. Each solid black circle denotes a neuronal assembly such as described above. These are intimately connected, each to the other, to perform some specific function. (For example in the brain region known as the limbic system, there is a structure called the hippocampus, within which an agglomerate of neuronal assemblies is dedicated to maximizing retention of events as memory.)

We then ask: What form or type of operational network can best exploit these properties to attain the desired function we want? That is, to be able to shut down or minimize negative inputs that contain information that amplifies unwarranted fears? The diagram (C) gives the clue: it will be a network for which a clustering algorithm is optimized, since this same clustering emulates the neuronal assemblies.

In the clustering algorithm view(C), the center for action (the m's) are going to be neurons, as occur in neuronal assemblies. As each cluster center m(i) is moved closer to the x(n) because the relevant equation minimizes the error vector, [x(n) - m(i)]. The relevant equation here is:

m(i)' = m(i) + a{x - m(i)} 

where a is the "learning rate" or in this case, the information processing (flow and refresh) rate in the network. The iterative aspect of the equation, emphasizes the fact that the algorithm is applicable for clustering the input vectors in real-time as they are acquired sequentially. Thus, the quantum gates will have an ongoing active role and continually update inputs as well as outputs.

What about the RBF network itself? This is shown in Fig. 2. 

Cursory inspection shows some similarities to the previous considered (numerically vetted) MLP network but also key differences. For example: the hidden layer j = 0, 1, 2 ....p has no bias inputs such as X(0) for the MLP. Both hidden layer operators transit to Y(k) and Y(m) which in turn feed into one bias point per cluster at Phi(0).

The output of a neuron in the output layer is then defined according to: y(k=j) = f(jth output of j = 0, 1, 2.....p neuron of hidden layer) which can be controlled by placing a quantum gate (likely NOT gate using the function for the Pauli spin matrix σ(z) = (1, 0¦0, -1), where as before, the left pair is a matrix 'top' and the right pair a matrix 'bottom' )

In effect, with correct placement of quantum dot NOT gates in the hidden layer, it will be possible to alter an input (0, 1) to an output (0,-1) say at the bias point Phi(0). That switching effect will then transfer to the output layer, inverting the outputs for the k = 1, 2,.....m neurons principally for the points y(1), y(k=j) and y(m). The key advantage of the RBF over an MLP network is that the RBF leads to better decision boundaries and improved classification of the information from the hidden layer. (Which might be very critical since not all information going to the amygdala is negative. Some is available evolutionarily, for example, to arouse an alert for a real threat!)

A remaining question or issue, is whether or not one quantum NOT gate is required for each neuron in the hidden layer. I am going to argue 'no', given the fact that quantum superposition superposition of data elements can apply such that: U = U(1) + U(0), where 1 and 0 denotes bits entrained to move along as information to the outputs y(1), y(k=j) and y(m). In principle, then, it is feasible that each quantum gate can - according to its qubit (not bit) capacity, match up to many more neuron bits in transit within the hidden layer.

For example, an ordinary (computer) register only holds one of eight possible 3-bit combinations at a time, say: 001, or 010, or 011. By contrast, a qubit register (or quantum gate acting as one) could accommodate all eight possible 3-bit combinations: 000, 001, 010, 100, 110, 101, 011, and 111. In general, for any given n-bit combination, with n a whole number, a qubit register could accommodate 2 to the nth power total combinations at one time. Thus, 16 combinations could be held in memory for 4-bits, 32 for 5-bits, and so on. This change marks an exponential (two to the 'n') increase over any classical counterpart.

The task now will be to check the workabilty of the RBF network by using a simulation code that can encode qubit capacity and be integral with the key network equations for the RBF network. What might be one way we know we're on the right track? Well, apart from getting the outputs we want at (1), y(k=j) and y(m), we also would like to see or ensure that the error function remains Gaussian, and doesn't suddenly change. For example, it can be shown that the relevant error function for a given neuron designated for the output bias is:

Phi(n) = exp {[x(n) - m(i)] ²/ 2s(n) ² where [x(n) - m(i)] is the Euclidean distance between x(n) and m(i) and which should not exceed the distance for which the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is applicable, e.g. ~ 300 nm, and s(n) is the standard deviation applicable to all neurons in the hidden layer subject to quantum gate effects. (It is also sometimes taken as the width of the Gaussian associated with the cluster algorithm prototype.).

All of the preceding is consistent with the "holarchy" cited by Mensan Christina Anne Knight (see my July 12 post)  in her 'Systems Approach to the Afterlife'  and first used by Arthur Koestler in The Ghost in the Machine .   As she points out and Koestler notes, this embodies  the "interdependence, interrelations and interaction of subsystems which results in a form of self-organization from which a larger system is an emergent product".  

In other words, consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the brain but an "emergent product".    This is  assured by the novel role of QM and especially the uncertainty principle which allows the sort of creative behavior and thought we associated with a highly functioning consciousness. Hence, no "soul" is needed for consciousness to operate. Moreover, it has the capacity to be fully rational in its capacity and operation, Donald Trump being the exception, obviously. And the consequences at death, again, Ms. Knight's words:

"If the conscious mind is located at the apex of this holarchic system , then the collapse of the substructure beneath it has terminal consequences."

Thus,

"The conscious mind becomes just another impermanent system subject to physical laws.  It does not survive death because it cannot exist outside the holarchic structure from which it emerged"

It would appear then that the WSJ letter writer underestimates the power of Materialism (in its quantum based form - called Monistic physicalism) to account for consciousness, as well as rendering any "soul" redundant.